Merged: To hand fly, or use the automatics?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TE901 Pre-Cursor to Today's Automation Quandary
After posting a reply on the Erebus thread, it occurred to me the relationship of this thread to what happened back then.
---------
Jafa: Quote:
Didn't do a track check out of the last waypoint (Mt Hallet?)
Relied on the INS which they knew at that stage could have been 15 miles out.
What was the weather radar picture?
Didn't do a track check out of the last waypoint (Mt Hallet?)
Relied on the INS which they knew at that stage could have been 15 miles out.
What was the weather radar picture?
It's been a long, long time since I looked at this. Isn't Hallet some 200 miles back? A 10 mile or whatever difference in next wpt would be on the order of 3 degrees. Is that enough to trigger concern? There might be that much error reading the HSI.
The AINS-70 did triple inertial mix before the term was invented by Litton in their later LTN-72. From the 5 hours or so since last AINS position update near Christchurch, the position error was about 1.5 miles. ANZ and other KSSU configuration DC-10 operators had always seen that kind of accuracy. The crew had little reason to question the Nav system, and they obviously never checked the lat/long in their flight release against a good chart. In fact, it was the over-reliance on the AINS by the pilots and the company that resulted in complacency.
Whose responsibility was it for the pilots to have good charts appropriate for the route? The QF 747s flying Antarctica at that time didn't have AINS-70, just triple INS. What charts did they have as backup?
The RDR-1F Wx radar in the ANZ DC-10 fleet would paint only a thin line when presented with a steep mountain from 1500 feet altitude. It would have been useful before they descended, however.
GB
The AINS-70 did triple inertial mix before the term was invented by Litton in their later LTN-72. From the 5 hours or so since last AINS position update near Christchurch, the position error was about 1.5 miles. ANZ and other KSSU configuration DC-10 operators had always seen that kind of accuracy. The crew had little reason to question the Nav system, and they obviously never checked the lat/long in their flight release against a good chart. In fact, it was the over-reliance on the AINS by the pilots and the company that resulted in complacency.
Whose responsibility was it for the pilots to have good charts appropriate for the route? The QF 747s flying Antarctica at that time didn't have AINS-70, just triple INS. What charts did they have as backup?
The RDR-1F Wx radar in the ANZ DC-10 fleet would paint only a thin line when presented with a steep mountain from 1500 feet altitude. It would have been useful before they descended, however.
GB
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,970
Received 96 Likes
on
55 Posts
From the point of view of someone who has never flown anything bigger than a Chieftain (and never will) I have found this thread fascinating.
Pardon my lack of knowlege on the subject but I would have thought that it would be good practice to 'hand fly' the big stuff without all the auto bits on occasion.
Also wondering why Chuckles hasn't commented as of yet.
Centaurus; Come clean now. Didja get to hold her hand later?
Pardon my lack of knowlege on the subject but I would have thought that it would be good practice to 'hand fly' the big stuff without all the auto bits on occasion.Also wondering why Chuckles hasn't commented as of yet.
Centaurus; Come clean now. Didja get to hold her hand later?
The RDR-1F Wx radar in the ANZ DC-10 fleet would paint only a thin line when presented with a steep mountain from 1500 feet altitude. It would have been useful before they descended, however.
GB
GB
A wise instructor once explained to me that modern cockpits turned the high workload phases of flight into even higher ones and the low workload phases into lower ones. Neither situation is ideal.
I find this an apt description of legacy Airbus technology. Day to day, on a green line from ILS to ILS, very easy, mind numbing flying.
When things go wrong, and you need to understand the language of the redundant systems and their limitations, workload is far higher than day to day op's.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus:
True, but within the ice of Erebus is a volcano, and while there will be some absorption, much of the signal will pass as if through air, and reflect off the rock.
GB
I believe that ice absorbs radar waves and that ice covered mountains would not show on older airborne weather radars. I vaguely recall this point was made during the original investigation. If correct, it would suggest that relying on weather radar for terrain clearance in the Antartic is risky.
GB
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's been interesting on a sociological level.
Every time the basic premise of this thread is trotted out, a cast of thousands flock to the site to extol the virtues of hand flying with a nationalistic style ferver akin to Americans draping their cars & houses in flags in an effort to be seen as the greater patriot, which itself is born out of a fear of being judged a lesser patriot than their fellow countrymen. (i.e. if I extol the virtues of hand flying then I must be considered a great and worthy pilot; Alternatively if I don't then by extrapolation i am neither worthy nor great ).
The Captain of an airliner is a lot like the captain of an ocean going ship. A ships captain doesn't sail the high seas for weeks or months on end clutching desperately at the wheel. In fact a ships captain may never touch the steering controls during a voyage. Yet there is no doubt about ability or who (or what) is in command.
i.e. the steering isn't the hard part, so the captain doesn't feel threatened by automation. The hard(er) part is being the commander which no computer, acountant or manager has been able to replicate.
...And when the machines do become self aware, I wish to be the first to side with our new computer overlords, that I may ...
Ive said too much.
Every time the basic premise of this thread is trotted out, a cast of thousands flock to the site to extol the virtues of hand flying with a nationalistic style ferver akin to Americans draping their cars & houses in flags in an effort to be seen as the greater patriot, which itself is born out of a fear of being judged a lesser patriot than their fellow countrymen. (i.e. if I extol the virtues of hand flying then I must be considered a great and worthy pilot; Alternatively if I don't then by extrapolation i am neither worthy nor great ).
The Captain of an airliner is a lot like the captain of an ocean going ship. A ships captain doesn't sail the high seas for weeks or months on end clutching desperately at the wheel. In fact a ships captain may never touch the steering controls during a voyage. Yet there is no doubt about ability or who (or what) is in command.
i.e. the steering isn't the hard part, so the captain doesn't feel threatened by automation. The hard(er) part is being the commander which no computer, acountant or manager has been able to replicate.
...And when the machines do become self aware, I wish to be the first to side with our new computer overlords, that I may ...
Ive said too much.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have followed this thread with interest and thought to add some observations based on recent experience. Over the last few weeks I have been having a lot of fun in an uncertified simulator.
No its not MFS, its way more sophisticated than that. Its a fully modelled 738 sim with most of the bells and whistles that are available on such an aircraft including all of the automatics.
Because I am having to come up to speed on something that I have never experienced before I am doing a lot of hand flying, especially the approaches, both visual and instrument, including such gems as Kai Tak 13, which is still in the data base FUN!
I have found that I use a lot of skills learnt during the days in GA, such things as comparison of height to distance to run, especially as the vision system isn't crash hot and you don't get a good visual appreciation of the runway until fairly close.
My experience in GA has given me the grounding to be able do a lot more hand flying on raw data (although I love the autothrottle
), whereas I suspect that those who have trained under the fast track system to an airline seat just don't have the experience to be able to do this. 
My view is that it is the training system that will decide whether pilots have complete reliance on automatics or can raw data hand fly in the future. My opinion is that complete reliance on automatics is dangerous. The sim I have been using still has a couple of quirks in it and one of them is an autopilot failure at embarrassing times.
Something that could always happen for real. 
No its not MFS, its way more sophisticated than that. Its a fully modelled 738 sim with most of the bells and whistles that are available on such an aircraft including all of the automatics.
Because I am having to come up to speed on something that I have never experienced before I am doing a lot of hand flying, especially the approaches, both visual and instrument, including such gems as Kai Tak 13, which is still in the data base FUN!
I have found that I use a lot of skills learnt during the days in GA, such things as comparison of height to distance to run, especially as the vision system isn't crash hot and you don't get a good visual appreciation of the runway until fairly close.
My experience in GA has given me the grounding to be able do a lot more hand flying on raw data (although I love the autothrottle
), whereas I suspect that those who have trained under the fast track system to an airline seat just don't have the experience to be able to do this. My view is that it is the training system that will decide whether pilots have complete reliance on automatics or can raw data hand fly in the future. My opinion is that complete reliance on automatics is dangerous. The sim I have been using still has a couple of quirks in it and one of them is an autopilot failure at embarrassing times.
Something that could always happen for real.
Something that could always happen for real. 
Every time the basic premise of this thread is trotted out, a cast of thousands flock to the site to extol the virtues of hand flying with a nationalistic style ferver akin to Americans draping their cars & houses in flags in an effort to be seen as the greater patriot, which itself is born out of a fear of being judged a lesser patriot than their fellow countrymen.
A worthy topic for debate.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Wood's Hole (N4131.0 W07041.5)
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9 Shackles - very convenient
Being a not so ancient mariner, it is nice to know that some things don't change - 100 fathoms (200m by today's measuring stick) per shackle. I only run 50m per "shackle" but then again, I am the one with the cheque book.
Now to confuse the land-lubbers with the length of a "cable", "heaving to", "clapped in irons", and a few more.
"Bosun, pipe "All hands to Prayers" and first mate, read the "Articles""
Now THAT is a serious thread drift
Now to confuse the land-lubbers with the length of a "cable", "heaving to", "clapped in irons", and a few more.
"Bosun, pipe "All hands to Prayers" and first mate, read the "Articles""
Now THAT is a serious thread drift
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cyphers link is a good read. I would love to see the training history of the crews involved in all the disorientation accidents. How much hands on IF flying in high performance aircraft had they actually done? It takes time Hand flying in IMC to appreciate and overcome the various illusions.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The second part of the title of the original post is "pure flying skills are for the birds."
Back in 1999, Flight Safety Australia magazine awarded a $500 prize to a pilot who offered his story for a "What went Wrong" competition. I am sure FSA and the pilot concerned (an old airline mate of mine) won't mind if I reproduce edited extracts from his story. It demonstrates pure flying skills are not only for the birds. And one wonders how today's wizards of the automatics would cope if something like this happened to them should they hire a Cessna or other lightie for a circuit or two.
"In July 1951, when a DC3 first officer based in Melbourne, I went to Mackay, Queensland, to ferry a Tiger Moth back to Melbourne.. The airline's chief inspector was to be on the ferry for technical support.
Rebuild of the aircraft had just been completed following damage sustained when a hangar collapsed during a cyclone. The owner carried out the first flight which I watched: everything was OK except the elevator control was a bit "offish". As I had not flown a Tiger for nine months a short flight would serve the purpose of providing familiarisation and giving a very helpful Mackay resident a joy ride. Checks were carried out in the usual DH 82 fashion while taxiing. Flying controls were checked and found to be "full, free and correct" as expected.
On take off the machine waddled down the runway then leapt into the air of its own accord. I was suddenly aware of climbing with 38 knots on the clock. Normal climb in the Tiger was 58 knots. The auto-slats were standing open like the legendary clutching claws of fate, and the aircraft's nose was still rising despite the fact the stick was full forward. Not a pretty picture.
To gain airspeed the machine was stood on it's port wingtips using rudder: the nose dropped, speed increased and problem number one was solved. Problem number two soon emerged - the aircraft insisted upon a tight left hand turn which couldn't be controlled with rudder - not really disturbing as a turn was necessary to return for landing. However, the left turn took us straight toward about six HF radio masts complete with aerials and guy wires.
Reduced bank produced a hop over that obstacle and a slipping descending turn was made to line up with the runway. Beaut! Except for problem number three, which became evident as the wings were levelled for landing; the nose popped up and we were climbing again. The second circuit was like the first although the speed was reduced to allow the wings to be levelled for landing; the reduction was insufficient and once again we were climbing.
Third time around proved lucky, the machine made quite a respectable landing by stalling completely as the wings came level. Almost a three-pointer, not bad after nine months. Had anyone been interested, three circuits with the stick full forward in less than two minutes would have been some sort of record. I apologised to the local passenger for the scary ride, disgustedly kicked one tyre hard, and returned to Melbourne. Later the aircraft flew normally after correction.
So, what went wrong? The control box was incorrectly assembled and at some stage the down-elevator cables became slack. Elevator control on the Tiger Moth is achieved by fore and aft rocking of a lever which is about 12 inches long pivoted at its centre; up-and-down elevator cables are attached to the ends of the lever.
Midway between the lever's pivot and it's lower end is a hole by which the control stick is attached. All of this is below and slightly behind the rear seat. No inspection doors are provided and the whole is concealed by the fabric cover of the aft fuselage. Cables cross inside the fuselage and exit the side covers about half-way between the rear cockpit and the leading edge of the tailplane. The rod from from the stick assembly was incorrectly attached to the lower extremity of the pivoted lever.
Back stick gave up-elevator correctly. As the stick was moved forward, slackness in the down-elevator cables allowed the elevators to fall down under their own weight. On take off, as the stick was moved forward to raise the tail, the elevator took up the streamlined position behind the tailplane as slipstream and airspeed increased. Unknown to me, was the fact that in straight and level flight of the Tiger Moth, the elevators are depressed by about 15 to 20 degrees. With the elevators streamlined behind the tailplane, a strong nose-up pitch force is experienced by the aircraft. Hence the aircraft left the ground in a tail-down attitude.
Fine tuning of cable tensions was done by the Mackay LAME, my company chief inspector, and the most senior Queensland Department of Civil Aviation aircraft surveyor. Obviously they believed the aircraft to be airworthy.
Fortunately I had received good training with the RAAF on Wirraways, Miles Masters, Spitfires and Typhoons, in authorised low flying, stalls, spins, aerobatics and recovery from unusual attitudes. All proved valuable".
An analysis of the incident by an FSA writer stated: The gratifying aspect of this tale is the skill and presence of mind that the writer displayed to land his aircraft given the significant control problems that were encountered. So, although the system let the pilot down, the basic skills which were developed during his initial pilot training and his subsequent experience, provided him with the depth of knowledge necessary to save this unusual situation.
............................................................ ...................................
A37575 comment: An hour of dual in an aerobatic aircraft might be a worthwhile long term investment for airline pilots. Probably claimable on tax, too. Or have a simulator instructor teach you unusual attitude recoveries.
Back in 1999, Flight Safety Australia magazine awarded a $500 prize to a pilot who offered his story for a "What went Wrong" competition. I am sure FSA and the pilot concerned (an old airline mate of mine) won't mind if I reproduce edited extracts from his story. It demonstrates pure flying skills are not only for the birds. And one wonders how today's wizards of the automatics would cope if something like this happened to them should they hire a Cessna or other lightie for a circuit or two.
"In July 1951, when a DC3 first officer based in Melbourne, I went to Mackay, Queensland, to ferry a Tiger Moth back to Melbourne.. The airline's chief inspector was to be on the ferry for technical support.
Rebuild of the aircraft had just been completed following damage sustained when a hangar collapsed during a cyclone. The owner carried out the first flight which I watched: everything was OK except the elevator control was a bit "offish". As I had not flown a Tiger for nine months a short flight would serve the purpose of providing familiarisation and giving a very helpful Mackay resident a joy ride. Checks were carried out in the usual DH 82 fashion while taxiing. Flying controls were checked and found to be "full, free and correct" as expected.
On take off the machine waddled down the runway then leapt into the air of its own accord. I was suddenly aware of climbing with 38 knots on the clock. Normal climb in the Tiger was 58 knots. The auto-slats were standing open like the legendary clutching claws of fate, and the aircraft's nose was still rising despite the fact the stick was full forward. Not a pretty picture.
To gain airspeed the machine was stood on it's port wingtips using rudder: the nose dropped, speed increased and problem number one was solved. Problem number two soon emerged - the aircraft insisted upon a tight left hand turn which couldn't be controlled with rudder - not really disturbing as a turn was necessary to return for landing. However, the left turn took us straight toward about six HF radio masts complete with aerials and guy wires.
Reduced bank produced a hop over that obstacle and a slipping descending turn was made to line up with the runway. Beaut! Except for problem number three, which became evident as the wings were levelled for landing; the nose popped up and we were climbing again. The second circuit was like the first although the speed was reduced to allow the wings to be levelled for landing; the reduction was insufficient and once again we were climbing.
Third time around proved lucky, the machine made quite a respectable landing by stalling completely as the wings came level. Almost a three-pointer, not bad after nine months. Had anyone been interested, three circuits with the stick full forward in less than two minutes would have been some sort of record. I apologised to the local passenger for the scary ride, disgustedly kicked one tyre hard, and returned to Melbourne. Later the aircraft flew normally after correction.
So, what went wrong? The control box was incorrectly assembled and at some stage the down-elevator cables became slack. Elevator control on the Tiger Moth is achieved by fore and aft rocking of a lever which is about 12 inches long pivoted at its centre; up-and-down elevator cables are attached to the ends of the lever.
Midway between the lever's pivot and it's lower end is a hole by which the control stick is attached. All of this is below and slightly behind the rear seat. No inspection doors are provided and the whole is concealed by the fabric cover of the aft fuselage. Cables cross inside the fuselage and exit the side covers about half-way between the rear cockpit and the leading edge of the tailplane. The rod from from the stick assembly was incorrectly attached to the lower extremity of the pivoted lever.
Back stick gave up-elevator correctly. As the stick was moved forward, slackness in the down-elevator cables allowed the elevators to fall down under their own weight. On take off, as the stick was moved forward to raise the tail, the elevator took up the streamlined position behind the tailplane as slipstream and airspeed increased. Unknown to me, was the fact that in straight and level flight of the Tiger Moth, the elevators are depressed by about 15 to 20 degrees. With the elevators streamlined behind the tailplane, a strong nose-up pitch force is experienced by the aircraft. Hence the aircraft left the ground in a tail-down attitude.
Fine tuning of cable tensions was done by the Mackay LAME, my company chief inspector, and the most senior Queensland Department of Civil Aviation aircraft surveyor. Obviously they believed the aircraft to be airworthy.
Fortunately I had received good training with the RAAF on Wirraways, Miles Masters, Spitfires and Typhoons, in authorised low flying, stalls, spins, aerobatics and recovery from unusual attitudes. All proved valuable".
An analysis of the incident by an FSA writer stated: The gratifying aspect of this tale is the skill and presence of mind that the writer displayed to land his aircraft given the significant control problems that were encountered. So, although the system let the pilot down, the basic skills which were developed during his initial pilot training and his subsequent experience, provided him with the depth of knowledge necessary to save this unusual situation.
............................................................ ...................................
A37575 comment: An hour of dual in an aerobatic aircraft might be a worthwhile long term investment for airline pilots. Probably claimable on tax, too. Or have a simulator instructor teach you unusual attitude recoveries.
It seems overseas pilots also share concerns about degradation of manual flying skills. This letter to Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine February 1, 2010.
"Since the advent of automated aircraft, airlines have enforced policies that require pilots to fly almost completely on autopilot. Those policies have severely reduced or eliminated opportunities for pilots to develop and maintain basic instrument flying and hand-flying skills that can enable them to fly safely under all conditions. We now have an industry populated with pilots who cannot effectively fly without the autopilot, even when conditions require it to be disengaged.
Hand-flying instrument skills require practice, without which it is unlikely that the pilot will be able to fly safely. Qualification on automated aircraft does not provide enough training time to both learn the automation and hand-fly the aircraft. It should not be one or the other, it should be both".
CASA, Qantas, Jetstar, Rex and Virgin Blue and their associates should ponder that good advice...
"Since the advent of automated aircraft, airlines have enforced policies that require pilots to fly almost completely on autopilot. Those policies have severely reduced or eliminated opportunities for pilots to develop and maintain basic instrument flying and hand-flying skills that can enable them to fly safely under all conditions. We now have an industry populated with pilots who cannot effectively fly without the autopilot, even when conditions require it to be disengaged.
Hand-flying instrument skills require practice, without which it is unlikely that the pilot will be able to fly safely. Qualification on automated aircraft does not provide enough training time to both learn the automation and hand-fly the aircraft. It should not be one or the other, it should be both".
CASA, Qantas, Jetstar, Rex and Virgin Blue and their associates should ponder that good advice...
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Domaine de la Romanee-Conti
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
1 - you're not allowed to hand fly in RVSM airspace which is where we spend 90% of our lives
2 - hand flying a big jet when it's a beautiful, low workload, CAVOK day = a lot of fun, but it's a completely different skill to hand flying it when it's sh!t weather IMC to minimas and you're dealing with multiple failures and associated checklists - which is the most likely scenario as to when you'll actually "need" to do it.
3 - it would be extremely prejudicial to safety to do hand flying on the line for the sake of realistic "practice" when it's sh!t weather and high workload, let alone with real live failures
4 - I don't know about boeings, but any failure mode in an airbus that knocks out both autopilots, also puts you in alternate or direct law, which is a very different flying "feel" to normal law, and certainly something you couldn't and wouldn't want to practice on the line if you valued your job
5 - I'm all in favour of more, non-assessable sim sessions, to relax and practice keeping the instrument scan current and the hand flying skills we DO need to keep the blue side up in non normal high workload situations, but lets keep it in the sim. Truth is that total autopilot failure in a big jet is a very very remote possibility and a pretty serious situation (because it's 99.99% of the time associated with failure of multiple other systems) and should be treated with the respect it deserves like any other emergency.
6. I don't see people on here agitating to practice, in the aircraft, any of the other handling related skills that we all wish we were more current on - like emergency decompressions or GPWS climbs - but the probability of encountering one of those is actually much much more likely than spending an extended period hand flying due to total automatics failure. I can't see what the big deal is myself.
2 - hand flying a big jet when it's a beautiful, low workload, CAVOK day = a lot of fun, but it's a completely different skill to hand flying it when it's sh!t weather IMC to minimas and you're dealing with multiple failures and associated checklists - which is the most likely scenario as to when you'll actually "need" to do it.
3 - it would be extremely prejudicial to safety to do hand flying on the line for the sake of realistic "practice" when it's sh!t weather and high workload, let alone with real live failures
4 - I don't know about boeings, but any failure mode in an airbus that knocks out both autopilots, also puts you in alternate or direct law, which is a very different flying "feel" to normal law, and certainly something you couldn't and wouldn't want to practice on the line if you valued your job
5 - I'm all in favour of more, non-assessable sim sessions, to relax and practice keeping the instrument scan current and the hand flying skills we DO need to keep the blue side up in non normal high workload situations, but lets keep it in the sim. Truth is that total autopilot failure in a big jet is a very very remote possibility and a pretty serious situation (because it's 99.99% of the time associated with failure of multiple other systems) and should be treated with the respect it deserves like any other emergency.
6. I don't see people on here agitating to practice, in the aircraft, any of the other handling related skills that we all wish we were more current on - like emergency decompressions or GPWS climbs - but the probability of encountering one of those is actually much much more likely than spending an extended period hand flying due to total automatics failure. I can't see what the big deal is myself.
It's amazing how one man's remote possibility seems to be another's day to day life. Total loss of autopilots, and decompression are both in my recent resume.
Nevertheless, I'm not a fan of people hand flying large jets, willy nilly. That's what the sims are for. Perhaps the real problem is that the sim exercises are a case of them vs us, and most of us want to get out of the box as soon as we've picked up enough ticks to do so.
Nevertheless, I'm not a fan of people hand flying large jets, willy nilly. That's what the sims are for. Perhaps the real problem is that the sim exercises are a case of them vs us, and most of us want to get out of the box as soon as we've picked up enough ticks to do so.
4 - I don't know about boeings, but any failure mode in an airbus that knocks out both autopilots, also puts you in alternate or direct law, which is a very different flying "feel" to normal law, and certainly something you couldn't and wouldn't want to practice on the line if you valued your job
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
United Airlines encourage manual flying to prevent complacency.
At last commonsense is beginning to prevail. An article in the latest Flight International reports that one of the world's largest airline operators - United Airlines -actively encourages pilots to hand-fly whenever possible and lays this down via the company FCOM.
Another paragraph in the same article reveals the United States pilot union ALPA echoes the view of the US FAA Administrator that airline pilots may need to spend more time hand-flying aircraft to stave off the impacts of automation.
So, the Revolution has started at long last and well overdue at that. And it is all about Loss of Control now going to the top of causes of aircraft crashes.
So, come on CASA, and pilot unions of Australia - how about some action on this subject which has been tip-toe'd around for years while our airlines hammer the fantastic advantages of automation from lift off to touch down - even on bloody Saab 340's and Dash Eights!
Another paragraph in the same article reveals the United States pilot union ALPA echoes the view of the US FAA Administrator that airline pilots may need to spend more time hand-flying aircraft to stave off the impacts of automation.
So, the Revolution has started at long last and well overdue at that. And it is all about Loss of Control now going to the top of causes of aircraft crashes.
So, come on CASA, and pilot unions of Australia - how about some action on this subject which has been tip-toe'd around for years while our airlines hammer the fantastic advantages of automation from lift off to touch down - even on bloody Saab 340's and Dash Eights!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 13
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's at least one Australian airline.... probably more.... where hand flying (on Long Haul aircraft at least) forms a significant part of climb and descent. Cruise is usually limited by RVSM requirements and there are state noise abatement requirements eg: Departure from London Heathrow that limit hand flying. But all in all there's a lot more hand flying going on than you might think.