Merged: To hand fly, or use the automatics?
Well written Tee Emm. You should do it for a living!
However, piloting and not prose is my profession and I put it to you that:
It is essential to maintain manual flying skills to a good level (well…sorta average for me – like most of us); but flying modern airliners in complex environments demands additional skills, especially if you want to look after yourself and thereby the customers. All of those skills have been mentioned in this thread. Manual flying skills can (should) be maintained in the simulator and down-route in appropriate circumstances. Time has taught me to be a little wary of those who need to augment their ego by demonstrating their superior manipulative skills.
Son, let me show you how I can torque turn this bird…SHEEIT!!...Holy Dooley that was close! Sorry, let me buy you a beer.
Son, let’s blast off and while we are turning and you are flying I’ll put us on the standbys and if you can’t handle that then you will have to learn how to fly.
Son, let me demonstrate how these birds can stall. Don’t worry about the edge of the sky being that close – I’ll pick it up.
Son, I have flown to Hagen a thousand times and I know that gap is just the other side of that piece of cloud. I’ll put her down just above the J and we’ll squeeze through – I can do it.
Son (in this case, maybe Yani), don’t worry about the AP and the published missed approach, I’ll just wheel it round and put us back on final.
...And the music goes on and on!
If you think you recognise any of the above situations and find my interpretations offensive, I apologise. Four of the above PICs are no longer with us; I regret deeply that they are not here to pass comment. Two were definitely superior “stick men” (I knew them well). The others thought they were better than your average bear; maybe they were, but they sure should have exercised some of those aforementioned other skills.
I believe the great majority of Captains, airline training departments and operational managements do encourage us to maintain our stick-and-rudder skills - IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
It is essential to maintain manual flying skills to a good level (well…sorta average for me – like most of us); but flying modern airliners in complex environments demands additional skills, especially if you want to look after yourself and thereby the customers. All of those skills have been mentioned in this thread. Manual flying skills can (should) be maintained in the simulator and down-route in appropriate circumstances. Time has taught me to be a little wary of those who need to augment their ego by demonstrating their superior manipulative skills.
Son, let me show you how I can torque turn this bird…SHEEIT!!...Holy Dooley that was close! Sorry, let me buy you a beer.
Son, let’s blast off and while we are turning and you are flying I’ll put us on the standbys and if you can’t handle that then you will have to learn how to fly.
Son, let me demonstrate how these birds can stall. Don’t worry about the edge of the sky being that close – I’ll pick it up.
Son, I have flown to Hagen a thousand times and I know that gap is just the other side of that piece of cloud. I’ll put her down just above the J and we’ll squeeze through – I can do it.
Son (in this case, maybe Yani), don’t worry about the AP and the published missed approach, I’ll just wheel it round and put us back on final.
...And the music goes on and on!
If you think you recognise any of the above situations and find my interpretations offensive, I apologise. Four of the above PICs are no longer with us; I regret deeply that they are not here to pass comment. Two were definitely superior “stick men” (I knew them well). The others thought they were better than your average bear; maybe they were, but they sure should have exercised some of those aforementioned other skills.
I believe the great majority of Captains, airline training departments and operational managements do encourage us to maintain our stick-and-rudder skills - IN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCUMSTANCES.
How about a work-from-home option? Monitor from your laptop on a beach somewhere - once she's settled in the cruise, off for a splash and a cocktail!
I jest of course, but it isnt too hard to imagine Ryanair running a UAV office one day. A screen, a joystick, a coffee machine, and a room full of FMS button pushers on $25 an hour.
I jest of course, but it isnt too hard to imagine Ryanair running a UAV office one day. A screen, a joystick, a coffee machine, and a room full of FMS button pushers on $25 an hour.
Extract from the FCOM of Germania Airline circa 1991. "Only under exceptional circumstances shall hand flying be permitted". Presumably the standard of their pilots was so dodgy that the company was forced to take precautionary measures to keep the pilots away from the controls.
Raw data proficiency provides the ability to see through erroneous automatics which seem to be a key factor in many accidents and incidents.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 754
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agreed, Possum.
I think we need to be careful to distinguish between those who are trying to prove something to the other guy by disconnecting & flying, and those who are picking an appropriate time to disconnect and fly in a genuine attempt to keep their skills up.
Note I said "attempt". There are 2 a/c types in QF where the rostering situation coupled with the nature of the flying makes it virtually impossible to maintain anything resembling a high level of manual flying skills on the line. Most, except the few pilots with the uncanny talent of having superior manual flying skills permanently etched into their motor-neuron system (as opposed to the ones who think they do), just stay "rusty".
Of course this is extremely unlikely to change, as it involves the expenditure of more money.
I think we need to be careful to distinguish between those who are trying to prove something to the other guy by disconnecting & flying, and those who are picking an appropriate time to disconnect and fly in a genuine attempt to keep their skills up.
Note I said "attempt". There are 2 a/c types in QF where the rostering situation coupled with the nature of the flying makes it virtually impossible to maintain anything resembling a high level of manual flying skills on the line. Most, except the few pilots with the uncanny talent of having superior manual flying skills permanently etched into their motor-neuron system (as opposed to the ones who think they do), just stay "rusty".
Of course this is extremely unlikely to change, as it involves the expenditure of more money.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: at home
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps a look at the Flash Airlines CVR transcript is worth a look, very relevant to this topic. The Captain was pleading for the A/P to engage shortly after take off, when he couldn't engage it the B737 rolled into the sea with the loss of all on board; no aircraft malfunctions at all. Thus total lack of flying skills due to automation reliance directly causing this accident.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quoting Sully.
“Now it might take ten or twelve presses of buttons on the computer to arrange for a runway change.”
Not in the A320, which Sully has been flying for many years. A runway change if done smartly, can be achieved in the press of 3 MCDU buttons and is much easier than re tuning an ILS in a steam driven aircraft.
“An example that comes to mind is on descent to the destination (whilst already hot and high), only to be given track shortening at the last moment. I've seen more than a few of my partners in crime work themselves into a frenzy, with fingers moving at light-speed across the myriad of buttons on the glareshield as they try to salvage the descent/approach profile. All of a sudden, an already high workload is pushed over the edge - and personally I find it much easier to just disconnect everything at that point and do it the old-fashioned way”
Bunglerat, what exactly does hand flying the jet achieve that the autopilot can’t when left hot and high? Can your arms extract a little more speed brake deflection than George can?
A lot of the issues discussed here arise from poor training and lack of understanding how the automated systems work.
“Now it might take ten or twelve presses of buttons on the computer to arrange for a runway change.”
Not in the A320, which Sully has been flying for many years. A runway change if done smartly, can be achieved in the press of 3 MCDU buttons and is much easier than re tuning an ILS in a steam driven aircraft.
“An example that comes to mind is on descent to the destination (whilst already hot and high), only to be given track shortening at the last moment. I've seen more than a few of my partners in crime work themselves into a frenzy, with fingers moving at light-speed across the myriad of buttons on the glareshield as they try to salvage the descent/approach profile. All of a sudden, an already high workload is pushed over the edge - and personally I find it much easier to just disconnect everything at that point and do it the old-fashioned way”
Bunglerat, what exactly does hand flying the jet achieve that the autopilot can’t when left hot and high? Can your arms extract a little more speed brake deflection than George can?
A lot of the issues discussed here arise from poor training and lack of understanding how the automated systems work.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: The Land Downunder
Posts: 765
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zapatas,
How about the fact that on the A320 you can only get 1/2 speedbrake deflection with the autopilot on. If you are hot and high a strategic disconnection of the autopilot to gain full speedbrake authority can be advantageous. How about you try and gain some understanding of how automation works on various aircraft before accussing others of being poorly trained.
How about the fact that on the A320 you can only get 1/2 speedbrake deflection with the autopilot on. If you are hot and high a strategic disconnection of the autopilot to gain full speedbrake authority can be advantageous. How about you try and gain some understanding of how automation works on various aircraft before accussing others of being poorly trained.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AH,
Very true. But I don't think thats what Brat is getting at. His argument appears to be one of workload. And the 320 is the only jet I know of like that. Does Brat fly one?
Very true. But I don't think thats what Brat is getting at. His argument appears to be one of workload. And the 320 is the only jet I know of like that. Does Brat fly one?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bunglerat, what exactly does hand flying the jet achieve that the autopilot can’t when left hot and high? Can your arms extract a little more speed brake deflection than George can?
Modern jets utilise multiple levels of automation, and a desired outcome can be achieved using more than just one mode available to the pilot. For example (and apologies for stating the obvious to the professionals who may be reading this), a descent on autopilot can be initiated using one of a number of options available for Boeing types - VNAV Path, VNAV Speed, Level Change, or Vertical Speed. Then there's Control Wheel Steering (another mode option again, but I digress). In the case of Airbus types - Managed Descent, Open Descent, Vertical Speed, or Flight Path Angle. Each mode is capable of achieving the same outcome (i.e. descending the aeroplane), but they do so in different ways - and the pilot needs to ascertain which mode is best suited to the situation at hand. In the case of the Boeing, VNAV Path (as the title suggests) places an emphasis on maintaining a descent path rather than speed. If, for example, the aeroplane is descending with a strong tailwind and starting to get too high on its descent profile, VNAV Path commands the nose to pitch further down in order to regain the profile. Seeing as there is no speed protection in this mode, the result can be an overspeed if the pilot does not intervene with manual control inputs or switch to a different mode. I could cite various examples of the idiosyncrasies of every mode available, but frankly I can't be bothered. In short, the pilot needs to be aware that each mode has strengths and limitations for a given situation.
So back to your question: What does hand-flying achieve that an autopilot can't? Let me put it this way: When you run down a flight of stairs, does your brain process every muscle movement and count each individual stair and where to place your feet on them? No. If you were to consciously think about each and every step and where you were placing your feet, you would trip over in a matter of seconds. Such a task is achievable only because we are able to quickly and naturally perform such a task without consciously processing each aspect of it. The same is true in the cockpit. In the example I gave in my earlier post, if I find myself hot and high on descent with track shortening thrown in for good measure, I can do it all on automatics - but then I have to consciously think about every aspect of the process, which mode to use, whether it is best suited to the task at hand, and subsequently perform numerous keystrokes on the FMC or button pressing on the Mode Control Panel (glareshield) to achieve the desired outcome. In the process I'm having to work harder, because whatever my desired intentions may be for the aeroplane to do next, there is the issue of it taking just that little bit longer to achieve - because I'm directing a third party (i.e. the autopilot) to do it all. On the other hand, when I disconnect and hand-fly, there's nothing more immediate, direct, and fluid in execution than one hand on the control column and the other on the thrust levers.
I hope that answers your question. And in spite of what I've just said, I am still very much in favour of using automatics - but under the appropriate circumstances, as has only been reinforced by others on this thread. And in answer to your other question: I currently fly 737's, but am also A330 type-rated.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bungle,
Ahhh, most of my career has been spent in jet aircraft and a good proportion of that in modern glass jets. Currently in Airbus FBW. Retirement very soon. So thanks for the arrogant lesson in how to operate an autopilot. It seems to me it would be much simpler if you just picked a mode and stuck with it.
Mate, real simple. ATC leave us high, open des. Pull the boards if necessary. Wind up the speed bug if need be. Ask the PNF to hit the mcdu 3 little presses and bingo, new runway is ready to roll.
It’s not that difficult.
It sounds like the automated systems on your jet are much more labor intensive than mine.
Ahhh, most of my career has been spent in jet aircraft and a good proportion of that in modern glass jets. Currently in Airbus FBW. Retirement very soon. So thanks for the arrogant lesson in how to operate an autopilot. It seems to me it would be much simpler if you just picked a mode and stuck with it.
Mate, real simple. ATC leave us high, open des. Pull the boards if necessary. Wind up the speed bug if need be. Ask the PNF to hit the mcdu 3 little presses and bingo, new runway is ready to roll.
It’s not that difficult.
It sounds like the automated systems on your jet are much more labor intensive than mine.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sounds like the automated systems on your jet are much more labor intensive than mine.
And if my reply was arrogant, I apologise, but to be honest, yours was a question that I wouldn't think necessary for any seasoned jet operator to need asking. As I said before, I am very much in favour of automatics, but in a time-critical situation indicative of the example I gave in my first post, the rate of response between a decision made by the human brain through to actual manipulation of the aircraft's controls, will always be faster through hand-flying than via an autopilot. Instructions to expect track shortening whilst still 30+ miles out from the field can usually be handled by the automatics without any problem. I'm talking about being downwind, abeam the runway threshold at 6000ft AGL, only to be instructed all of a sudden to take up a heading for base leg - when you were expecting another 20 track miles.
Last edited by The Bunglerat; 12th Jan 2010 at 00:26.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: mexico
Posts: 161
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"yours was a question that I wouldn't think necessary for any seasoned jet operator to need asking."
Your attitude: When it all gets too hard and busy I DISCONNECT THE AUTOPILOT because then I don't "have to consciously think about every aspect of the process".
There is no right or wrong answer, can we agree to disagree.
But please tell me you only do this in good weather.
Your attitude: When it all gets too hard and busy I DISCONNECT THE AUTOPILOT because then I don't "have to consciously think about every aspect of the process".
There is no right or wrong answer, can we agree to disagree.
But please tell me you only do this in good weather.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Wherever the job takes me...
Posts: 318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But please tell me you only do this in good weather.
Apologies to one and all for the thread drift, by the way.
Bunglerat, what exactly does hand flying the jet achieve that the autopilot can’t when left hot and high? Can your arms extract a little more speed brake deflection than George can?
A lot of the issues discussed here arise from poor training and lack of understanding how the automated systems work.
A lot of the issues discussed here arise from poor training and lack of understanding how the automated systems work.
The Airbus flight directors are 1.1G limited and in a hot n' high scenario are very limiting. Having flown Airbus domestically in Australia with Ansett we were expected to smoothly but firmly put the aircraft where we wanted it to be after taking out the automatics. When the aircraft back in the slot automatics re-instated.
Moving on to today as I respect the fact that the old TAA/AN domestic operations no longer the norm.
In today's operations of STARs & SIDS the limitations of the Airbus automatics can still arise- poor vectoring, G/S intercepts from above etc.
Flicking through the legacy A320 QRH I am going to list current QRH procedures where good raw data skills necessary. It is not just the basic skill of flying raw data, it is the ability to fly raw data and manage your flight deck in a failure scenario. Practice and proficiency important. It is debatable how perishable these skills are but many pilots I have flown with don't have them to start with or to a good standard.
1) Emergency Electrical Configuration. From simulator experience, this is a critical area as I have seen pilots who struggle with their raw data flying invariably are task saturated in this demanding scenario.
2) Windshear. Mentions a pitch attitude if FD's not available. Sounds easy but lets not forget that disorientation in Airbus on GA has caused accidents.
3) Display Unit Failure. Take a few screens away and you're on that teeny-weeny back-up AH.
4) Unreliable Airspeed. "FD's off". Also, possibility of FPA errors so could be back to Navajo days. A pilot with strong raw data skills will be better prepared for this procedure than one who is not.
5) ADR 1+2+3 Fault. No FPA. Navajo days.
6) Volcanic Ash. Possible unreliable airspeed scenario.
7) Loss of FMS Data In Descent/Approach ( severe reset ). Saw this prior to it being a QRH procedure. Hard tuned ILS and VOR DME on approach to PEK. Raw data approach. Often misidentified with 8).
8) 2 x FMGC failure. Raw data.
I haven't the time to look through Vol 3 and come up with scenarios such as double FCU faults.
You can debate how often would you see these scenarios on the line? I would suggest from simulator experience, those crews who deal with the scenarios best have good core raw data flying skills and technique.
Ever since I have been on Airbus there has always been a tombstone approach to deficiencies in the automatics with either CPIP ( software updates ) or OEB's addressing failings. On a good day the aeroplane covers up areas of weakness in pilots through technology. But when that technology is at fault or limited, we have had some tragic accidents from mode confusion and disorientation. And in every Airbus airline I have worked with there have been spectacular incidents where erroneous information presented by FD's followed on GA or approach.
Raw data skills are a long way off from being replaced by fail safe technology. Cynically, I believe the loss of these skills is a cost factor. It is cheaper to have a lower standard of pilot available for recruiting purposes- addressing supply & demand issues.
1) Emergency Electrical Configuration. From simulator experience, this is a critical area as I have seen pilots who struggle with their raw data flying invariably are task saturated in this demanding scenario.
2) Windshear. Mentions a pitch attitude if FD's not available. Sounds easy but lets not forget that disorientation in Airbus on GA has caused accidents.
3) Display Unit Failure. Take a few screens away and you're on that teeny-weeny back-up AH.
4) Unreliable Airspeed. "FD's off". Also, possibility of FPA errors so could be back to Navajo days. A pilot with strong raw data skills will be better prepared for this procedure than one who is not.
5) ADR 1+2+3 Fault. No FPA. Navajo days.
6) Volcanic Ash. Possible unreliable airspeed scenario.
7) Loss of FMS Data In Descent/Approach ( severe reset ). Saw this prior to it being a QRH procedure. Hard tuned ILS and VOR DME on approach to PEK. Raw data approach. Often misidentified with 8).
8) 2 x FMGC failure. Raw data.
I haven't the time to look through Vol 3 and come up with scenarios such as double FCU faults.
You can debate how often would you see these scenarios on the line? I would suggest from simulator experience, those crews who deal with the scenarios best have good core raw data flying skills and technique.
Ever since I have been on Airbus there has always been a tombstone approach to deficiencies in the automatics with either CPIP ( software updates ) or OEB's addressing failings. On a good day the aeroplane covers up areas of weakness in pilots through technology. But when that technology is at fault or limited, we have had some tragic accidents from mode confusion and disorientation. And in every Airbus airline I have worked with there have been spectacular incidents where erroneous information presented by FD's followed on GA or approach.
Raw data skills are a long way off from being replaced by fail safe technology. Cynically, I believe the loss of these skills is a cost factor. It is cheaper to have a lower standard of pilot available for recruiting purposes- addressing supply & demand issues.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 12th Jan 2010 at 07:39.
I recall that if the AP is ON and speed brake in use then the AP uses more than 1.1 G, 1.15 I think. Just as the best button in the aircraft, the EXP PB, allows the AP to use more G. Some anorak can look it up.
One must have a raw data flying proficiency due to the reasons Gnads provides. Unfortunately if you do not have these skills when you join an airline I doubt that you going to develop them to a high degree whilst airline flying.
One must have a raw data flying proficiency due to the reasons Gnads provides. Unfortunately if you do not have these skills when you join an airline I doubt that you going to develop them to a high degree whilst airline flying.
ATC leave us high, open des. Pull the boards if necessary. Wind up the speed bug if need be
Well Cento I feel it does come down to a A or B discussion.
If you want to get a Boeing down, slow down and put out some flap or use the speed brake.
On the Airbus the speed brake is not as effective as the Boeing's at say less than 300kts so it is often prudent to increase speed to get down to your approach commencement altitude then decelerate whilst level using drag devices A/R.
A320s with the CFM56 will fly down an ILS and maintain speed with Flap 1. An A320 with V2500s will accelerate down an ILS due to the higher idle.
Of course at some stage you will have to slow down to configure. Easier in the B than the A I feel due to higher Vfe amongst other things.
Then there is the A330.
What was this thread about again?
If you want to get a Boeing down, slow down and put out some flap or use the speed brake.
On the Airbus the speed brake is not as effective as the Boeing's at say less than 300kts so it is often prudent to increase speed to get down to your approach commencement altitude then decelerate whilst level using drag devices A/R.
A320s with the CFM56 will fly down an ILS and maintain speed with Flap 1. An A320 with V2500s will accelerate down an ILS due to the higher idle.
Of course at some stage you will have to slow down to configure. Easier in the B than the A I feel due to higher Vfe amongst other things.
Then there is the A330.
What was this thread about again?