Merged: To hand fly, or use the automatics?
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The Brickyard
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting energy concept. "Wind up the speed bug if need be" So you lose height real quick but are hoisted on your own petard with all that extra speed (energy) to dissipate at the other end. Good recipe for eventual unstable approach perhaps?
Interesting energy concept. "Wind up the speed bug if need be" So you lose height real quick but are hoisted on your own petard with all that extra speed (energy) to dissipate at the other end. Good recipe for eventual unstable approach perhaps?
Not really. This manouvre would more than likely be expected on your downwind leg. Not only assists you in losing height expeditiously but also increases your distance from the landing threshold. Combined with the energy you will naturally lose in a couple of turns to eventually intercept final and a nice little level segment and the end result should be quite pleasing to the eye. That is if you are expecting it and are prepared for it. There are heaps of ways to skin a cat, none more right or wrong than the other, as long as the operator is aware of each ones limitations.
Back to the original topic, I feel sorry for any pilot that feels they are unable or incapable of turning the motion on at any stage during the descent/approach. It has nothing to do with proving a point and everything to do with enjoying the job that I do. Of course you pick your moments
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>"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."</i>
Possum don't you know that you aren't allowed to criticise Pel-Air pilots in PPRuNe posts?
Possum don't you know that you aren't allowed to criticise Pel-Air pilots in PPRuNe posts?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sigh, don't get me started. Airmanship, yes A-I-R-M-A-N-S-H-I-P, remember that, when pilots were allowed to think for themselves. One of my great memories was when one of the very senior TAA captains threw a manual at me (and I mean threw) and stated, find out what sh&t they have in their jesus book about this problem, ( a nose wheel problem) because regardless of what freckin crap they have written anybody with half a brain could sort it out themselves! Yes times have changed, aircraft have changed, but I look back at the times when pilots like him were frustrated at the slow but insidious march to death by manual. It had to happen of course, the aircraft are far more complicated, and pilots of my era would be bamboozled by all the computers, but for us old blokes who flew a magic aircraft like the DC9, a complicated little bastard, that you could not trust for five minutes, a pocket rocket that really made you work, and made you think, but you loved unconditionally, I am glad I flew when I did, we were pilots not systems managers, I think they call it progress!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If pilots can not manually work out a profile while retracting flap and maintaining speed, without busting a limit then they should not be in the seat. Simple. Automation makes it easier yes, however it is there as an aid not to rely on. LV says he has made mistakes as we all have while climbing out of Syd. Seriously if you cannot do this then time to look for a new job.
Over
Over
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A balanced pilot is equally competent with automation and manual flight. And he possesses judgement to know when manual flight is appropriate.
Some crew seem equally lost autopilot on or off
Some crew seem equally lost autopilot on or off
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fron an ATC point of view when we went from paper strips,chinagraphs,pens, etc, to computers the problem we found was getting the older controller to use and trust the automation (computers) and the younger ones not to 'trust' the automation.
That is, for the older ones to use the new tools and the younger ones not to have blind faith in them.
Automation is an aid to doing our job, ultimately it is the humans responsibility to make sure the the computer is being used appropriately and intervene when it is not. The computer is only as good as the information in it.
As regards to UAV type operations, personally, I wouldn't get on an aircraft where the people flying don't have as much at stake as getting it back on the ground safely as I do.
That is, for the older ones to use the new tools and the younger ones not to have blind faith in them.
Automation is an aid to doing our job, ultimately it is the humans responsibility to make sure the the computer is being used appropriately and intervene when it is not. The computer is only as good as the information in it.
As regards to UAV type operations, personally, I wouldn't get on an aircraft where the people flying don't have as much at stake as getting it back on the ground safely as I do.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The business in which I am involved sees a more or less constant stream of well qualified pilots be called up for airline interviews which include a short flight in a simulator involving raw data manoeuvres. It is not a tough test but actually very good for observing the candidates potential as first officer in terms of manual flying skill.
In earlier times I was given a similar short test in a 737-400 simulator in Europe by the chief pilot of a well known German airline as part of a PARC contract application. That particular test consisted, among other manoeuvres like a raw data ILS, climbing and descending turns at set rates but with landing flap down and flying right on Vref. Interestingly a similar series of manoeuvers used to be conducted in the old link trainers decades ago and were called Pattern A and B. It was aimed at assessing accuracy of instrument scan and how quickly the inevitable errors that occured, were rectified.
A number of experienced pilots who had been captains on glass cockpit wide-bodies, failed the assessment because they had lost all touch with manual raw data skills.
The sad part was these highly experienced captains would have made safe and reliable pilots in their new job regardless of their assessment short-comings, if only the their previous airline concerned had included a steady diet of manual non-automatics during cyclic simulator sessions. And not just an occasional hand flown ILS either.
The chief pilot of the German airline who had the job of assessing these applications could only judge the candidates on what he saw on the day. When it was clear the candidates instrument flying ability was woeful on raw data, he had little choice but to say thanks but no thanks. I mean, what else could he have done? Maybe allow them to use the autopilot and other automatics for the whole simulator assessment and say well done that man - you flew beautifully (or the autopilot did, anyway!).
We all know there are rare occasions when it is vital to switch off the automatics goodies and manually correct some severe out of trim situation like wake turbulence encounter in IMC or anything else too horrible to contemplate. For that a pilot needs basic pure flying ability. And that is what an assessing authority is looking for during a candidates flight simulator test.
With the major part of a type rating on say the A320 or B737NG being on the automatics systems operation, and the line flying being the same, operations management of an airline should not ignore that pure flying skills are equally important as automatics monitoring. How those manual flying skills are kept current is clearly a matter of personal choice.
It is when an airline pays lip service to this but then makes no regular and effective provision for this during simulator cyclic training, is where pilots are let down by their management.
In earlier times I was given a similar short test in a 737-400 simulator in Europe by the chief pilot of a well known German airline as part of a PARC contract application. That particular test consisted, among other manoeuvres like a raw data ILS, climbing and descending turns at set rates but with landing flap down and flying right on Vref. Interestingly a similar series of manoeuvers used to be conducted in the old link trainers decades ago and were called Pattern A and B. It was aimed at assessing accuracy of instrument scan and how quickly the inevitable errors that occured, were rectified.
A number of experienced pilots who had been captains on glass cockpit wide-bodies, failed the assessment because they had lost all touch with manual raw data skills.
The sad part was these highly experienced captains would have made safe and reliable pilots in their new job regardless of their assessment short-comings, if only the their previous airline concerned had included a steady diet of manual non-automatics during cyclic simulator sessions. And not just an occasional hand flown ILS either.
The chief pilot of the German airline who had the job of assessing these applications could only judge the candidates on what he saw on the day. When it was clear the candidates instrument flying ability was woeful on raw data, he had little choice but to say thanks but no thanks. I mean, what else could he have done? Maybe allow them to use the autopilot and other automatics for the whole simulator assessment and say well done that man - you flew beautifully (or the autopilot did, anyway!).
We all know there are rare occasions when it is vital to switch off the automatics goodies and manually correct some severe out of trim situation like wake turbulence encounter in IMC or anything else too horrible to contemplate. For that a pilot needs basic pure flying ability. And that is what an assessing authority is looking for during a candidates flight simulator test.
With the major part of a type rating on say the A320 or B737NG being on the automatics systems operation, and the line flying being the same, operations management of an airline should not ignore that pure flying skills are equally important as automatics monitoring. How those manual flying skills are kept current is clearly a matter of personal choice.
It is when an airline pays lip service to this but then makes no regular and effective provision for this during simulator cyclic training, is where pilots are let down by their management.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just after the previous post the latest issue (12-18 January) of Flight International arrived in my letter box. The annual airline flight safety review listed all the latest accidents and comment was made about the Flight International Crew Management Conference held in London in early December last year. It noted that loss of control (known as LOC) has been proportionally increasing as a serious accident cause. Here are some selected edited extracts:
"In the absence of appropriate change in statutory recurrent training requirements, there is no reason to believe this (LOC) is going to change. A vital component in an airline pilot's recurrent training has gone missing with the advent of high levels of automation, and at present this training has not been replaced.
The missing component is on-the-job mental and physical interactivity with the aircraft and its navigation systems that pilots used to get in "round dial" classic cockpits that lacked integrated navigation displays and highly capable digital flight management systems. All pilots learn the basic "raw data" capability during their ab initio training, but if they go straight on to highly automated aircraft they may never use it again.
That is not a problem until an electrical anomaly leaves them with nothing but standby instruments, or a reduced panel at night or in IMC. Training solutions to enable pilots to cope with this loss of line-flying practice might include the introduction of compulsory upset recovery training, and /or mandatory simulator time using raw data only during bi-annual recurrent training sessions.
But there is no sign yet that any aviation authorities are preparing to address this issue. ..... But with the reduction of pilot supply from the military, combined with the withdrawal of airlines from pilot training sponsorship, means that carriers are more likely to have to recruit self-selected, self-funded pilots who can only afford to train to the legal minima".
............................................................ ....
Of course, all this applies only to foreign pilots, doesn't it? After all, the big accidents only happen overseas - never Australia.
"In the absence of appropriate change in statutory recurrent training requirements, there is no reason to believe this (LOC) is going to change. A vital component in an airline pilot's recurrent training has gone missing with the advent of high levels of automation, and at present this training has not been replaced.
The missing component is on-the-job mental and physical interactivity with the aircraft and its navigation systems that pilots used to get in "round dial" classic cockpits that lacked integrated navigation displays and highly capable digital flight management systems. All pilots learn the basic "raw data" capability during their ab initio training, but if they go straight on to highly automated aircraft they may never use it again.
That is not a problem until an electrical anomaly leaves them with nothing but standby instruments, or a reduced panel at night or in IMC. Training solutions to enable pilots to cope with this loss of line-flying practice might include the introduction of compulsory upset recovery training, and /or mandatory simulator time using raw data only during bi-annual recurrent training sessions.
But there is no sign yet that any aviation authorities are preparing to address this issue. ..... But with the reduction of pilot supply from the military, combined with the withdrawal of airlines from pilot training sponsorship, means that carriers are more likely to have to recruit self-selected, self-funded pilots who can only afford to train to the legal minima".
............................................................ ....
Of course, all this applies only to foreign pilots, doesn't it? After all, the big accidents only happen overseas - never Australia
.
Of course, all this applies only to foreign pilots, doesn't it? After all, the big accidents only happen overseas - never Australia
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
however it is there as an aid not to rely on
Firstly, a 'war-ie', which I've probably told before here on Pprune.
Some years ago, I was doing my annual line check (in a B777), Dubai to Jeddah, (a nice day sector without any real traps for young players). It was my leg outbound and the FO, an Australian, who was ex-GA, was also doing his line check and would fly the return sector.
The aircraft had been written up repeatedly for double FMS failures, and sure enough, we had one in the cruise. For those not familiar with the triple 7, a dual FMS failure, except perhaps during a complicated SID or STAR, is a relatively no sweat problem. Even with both systems failed, you're still left with the three most important pages of the FMS immediately available to you, if with slightly reduced user friendliness. (For instance, you – [gasp!] have to actually tune the navaid!)
Recovering the system to full operational capacity is also usually a relatively simple procedure, so it wasn't as if we felt we were suddenly doing a sim. ride. Following the recovery procedure, we got both systems back on line, so we proceeded normally to destination. I briefed for the approach, but since I knew there was a chance the FMSs might spit the dummy again, and since I knew my FO would be comfortable with flying basic instruments, I went to some lengths to include in my briefing that if the FMSs failed again below 15,000’, we would not try to recover them, but switch the nav display to the old fashioned CDI display and follow the VOR radial in until we were put on radar vectors. Part of this ‘belts and braces’ approach to our approach included manually tuning both the ILS and the VOR and both of us pre-setting the required VOR radial on our individual FMSs. This meant, if the FMSs failed again, all we had to do was simply rotate one switch each to give us the displays we would require.
Halas! Problem solved! We could get on with flying the aeroplane.
Are you finding this long-winded? I’m spelling it all out like this because I went into similar detail in briefing my FO (who I knew quite well and who I knew to be more than capable of handling any such downgrade) and the check captain.
You guessed it. I forget exactly when, but below 15,000’ on descent, both FMSs went west again. The FO and I did as briefed, switched to VOR display and went on with the descent, both quite comfortable with a CDI nav display both of us would once have thought as pure loooxury.
However, the check captain, who had sat through my detailed briefing without comment, was horrified. He had gone straight from his basic training into the right seat of a jet in his national flag carrier airline, (the national airline of the country that’s currently playing cricket against Ricky P. and his lads), and even in day and VMC, was not at all comfortable with the unfamiliar display.
“You can’t do an approach with a magenta line!” he cried, and proceeded to lean over the centre console and fiddle with the FMS until, at around 7,000’, (by which time we were on radar vectors and didn’t need it), he recovered that oh so necessary magenta line.
The check captain was (and remains) an above average captain. (He must be; he’s part of the check and training staff.) But he’s like an increasingly large proportion of airline pilots today. He has come to rely upon aids that, when push comes to shove, we all should be able to do without.
Too many of us today cannot.
---
Secondly, I watched ‘Air Crash Investigation’ recently, the episode about the Adam Air B737-400 that was lost when the crew switched their malfunctioning IRSs to ‘ATT’ mode after the NAV mode went off the rails. (A recurring problem on that particular aircraft, which was fixed – repeatedly – with a re-racking of the IRS and a squirt of WD40.)
Making this switching requires that the aircraft be flown straight and level for 30 seconds while the ATT mode sorts itself out. In IMC, at night and in stormy conditions, the captain was unable to do so. 30 seconds on the standby instruments, which includes a perfectly serviceable attitude indicator. That’s all it took – (that’s if he even looked at them!) – for a trained airline captain to put an aircraft full of people into a spiral dive.
The accountants will tell you – in their eyes, quite correctly – that the statistical chances of a double IRS failure occurring (or being induced by crew action) again (or in the first place!) during a period of extreme weather that would lead to the crew losing control during the switchover to ATT mode are so slim that the costs of training and maintaining the crews at a sufficient level of manipulative skills would far outweigh the loss of an airframe every ‘n’ thousand cycles.
Try telling that to the families, both of the crew and of the passengers on that Adam Air flight.
Moderator
For instance, you – [gasp!] have to actually tune the navaid!
Time for the prayer beads ! I get less and less interested in doing any more flying - I can press buttons to my heart's content on various electronic gadgets at work (should I really want to) without having to do 0-dark-30 sim sessions for licence renewals.
Try telling that to the families, both of the crew and of the passengers on that Adam Air flight.
The pragmatic reality is that "affordable safety" (as our former Regulatory Leader used to say) IS the reality. Folks like A37575 (whom I have known for 30-40 years) can do both the stick and rudder AND the nickelodeon thing with equal dexterity and style. The problem arises with pilots who can do one but not the other and/or inappropriately use one when the other is blindingly obviously the more appropriate (and safer) option.
Is there a simple solution ? Of course not .. and the pragmatic one just costs money.
Time for the prayer beads ! I get less and less interested in doing any more flying - I can press buttons to my heart's content on various electronic gadgets at work (should I really want to) without having to do 0-dark-30 sim sessions for licence renewals.
Try telling that to the families, both of the crew and of the passengers on that Adam Air flight.
The pragmatic reality is that "affordable safety" (as our former Regulatory Leader used to say) IS the reality. Folks like A37575 (whom I have known for 30-40 years) can do both the stick and rudder AND the nickelodeon thing with equal dexterity and style. The problem arises with pilots who can do one but not the other and/or inappropriately use one when the other is blindingly obviously the more appropriate (and safer) option.
Is there a simple solution ? Of course not .. and the pragmatic one just costs money.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the relatively extensive hands-on experience of our ex-GA pilots
Cockpit incompetence knows no borders; in fact Australian pilots are far more lazy on average.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting energy concept. "Wind up the speed bug if need be" So you lose height real quick but are hoisted on your own petard with all that extra speed (energy) to dissipate at the other end. Good recipe for eventual unstable approach perhaps?
Um this is one of the very very basics of flying a jet. Combined with the speed brake if needed is a basic tool for getting back on profile. Of course you can combine this with slowing a/c down then winding speed up to regain profile. With these tools I have never not back on profile even when ATC still has me at 20000 feet 40 mile out.
Um this is one of the very very basics of flying a jet. Combined with the speed brake if needed is a basic tool for getting back on profile. Of course you can combine this with slowing a/c down then winding speed up to regain profile. With these tools I have never not back on profile even when ATC still has me at 20000 feet 40 mile out.
Last edited by captaintunedog777; 16th Jan 2010 at 11:15.
My take on being caught high and fast is that is a matter of too much energy, potential and kinetic.
My solution is to slow down to min speed quickly, then hang out flaps, boards and gear. Then see where the flight path is projecting you, if it is short of the runway you're OK, you'll get in but watch stable approach criteria at 500ft. If you project into the runway you're buggered, you will not satisfy the stable approach criteria. If you're IMC you need to be a lot more conservative, if for no other reason that stable approach criteria are based on 1000ft and also you can't see where the hell your flight path is projecting.
If in doubt request more track miles. Slowing down rapidly gives you more time to descend and get stable. Time is the key.
As soon as you're sure it won't work, DO SOMETHING like go around, NEVER just hang in there and hope it gets better.
My solution is to slow down to min speed quickly, then hang out flaps, boards and gear. Then see where the flight path is projecting you, if it is short of the runway you're OK, you'll get in but watch stable approach criteria at 500ft. If you project into the runway you're buggered, you will not satisfy the stable approach criteria. If you're IMC you need to be a lot more conservative, if for no other reason that stable approach criteria are based on 1000ft and also you can't see where the hell your flight path is projecting.
If in doubt request more track miles. Slowing down rapidly gives you more time to descend and get stable. Time is the key.
As soon as you're sure it won't work, DO SOMETHING like go around, NEVER just hang in there and hope it gets better.
Permit me to be the devils advocate here...
From the bean counting angle, the problem is slightly different.
You are told that the shiny new aircraft you are being sold have all this wonderful automatic stuff in it that does wonders.
Fine say the bean counters, since the aircraft will virtually fly and maintain itself, that means we can start hiring monkeys for pilots and engineers and cut down on training and employment costs, right?
Try explaining that in addition to more training on automatic systems, you still require your crew to demonstrate competency on steam gauges. Can you see where some of the pressure is coming from? "Why isn't this new technology lowering our cost base faster?"
From the bean counting angle, the problem is slightly different.
You are told that the shiny new aircraft you are being sold have all this wonderful automatic stuff in it that does wonders.
Fine say the bean counters, since the aircraft will virtually fly and maintain itself, that means we can start hiring monkeys for pilots and engineers and cut down on training and employment costs, right?
Try explaining that in addition to more training on automatic systems, you still require your crew to demonstrate competency on steam gauges. Can you see where some of the pressure is coming from? "Why isn't this new technology lowering our cost base faster?"
Registered User **
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Sydney
Posts: 621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks like the old joke of the new flight deck crew of a dog and a pilot is getting closer to reality.
It wouldn't have been too long ago and if you told navigators and engineers that they would be replaced by something the size of a shoe box or smaller they would have laughed at you.
The US military is already using pilotless aircraft so it's only a matter of time before it creeps into civilian aircraft.
Guys and girls ,make hay while the sun shines.
It wouldn't have been too long ago and if you told navigators and engineers that they would be replaced by something the size of a shoe box or smaller they would have laughed at you.
The US military is already using pilotless aircraft so it's only a matter of time before it creeps into civilian aircraft.
Guys and girls ,make hay while the sun shines.