Once a pilot - now a computer's sidekick
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Capn Bloggs, aren't they all? It's just the speed and number of bugs that varies!
A few people here still don't get it. Of course you can hand fly but with most companies SOP's it loads up the non-flying pilot to the detriment of his primary role of monitoring and cross-checking.
If a support pilot struggles and his capacity is sapped in this role, how will he perform if I have a multiple failure where automation is degraded?
I am expected, as an airline pilot, to perform and put the aircraft safely on the ground when faced with all the multi-failure scenarios. Raw data proficiency in suitable conditions, keeps me honed not only in elemental flying skills, but also in other areas of flight deck performance. For example, it is a skill in itself to not load up your support pilot and to run checklists at suitable times and to manage the workload appropriately.
If I have double hydraulics failure or fly in emergency configuration for example, I need the high levels of capacity to hand fly the aeroplane and manage what could be a MPL/300 hour cadet who's hands will be trying to go everywhere. The outfit I fly with has had two self induced double hydraulic failures due poor flight deck coordination.
A raw data approach every month is enough for me to maintain some of these important skills!
I like this story from early days. New F/O comes whistling around the corner in an A320 at Epping. Weather fluctuating about the minima. Autopilot off, flight directors off, autothrust off.....raw data approach.
Old Captain leans over and re-instates the automatics and the aircraft flys a coupled approach and lands from the minima. On the ground Capt asks the F/O WTF were you doing? F/O explains that in the RAAF they were told to do their raw data flying when they were tired and the weather the worst, to heighten the training value!
I would expect we all realize the inappropriateness of the above; that's what the simulators are for. Hand flying on the line should be a normal currency. Sadly, the big deal that's been made of it, has the new generation terrified of hand flying and they are some of the quickest draws in getting that autopilot in straight after T/O.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 23rd Jul 2012 at 03:32.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be out-of-touch with airline flying, but has the simple practice of autopilot , autothrust (maybe leave it on in an A320) and flight director off for a visual approach given way to working like a one-armed paper-hangar on the mode control panel? I used to watch (with comic curiosity) the occasional pilot use the FMC and MCP to over complicate a simple situation where the majority of us would disengage all the automatics and fly the bloody thing.
My usual ports (MEL, SYD, ADL, PER, BNE, CNS, OOL, LST, HBA, CBR) offered daily opportunities to do just that. Many of the comments on this thread strike me as quite naive about the need to use automatics full-time. Raw-data and hand-flying is not some kind of crisis situation.
The comment about the FO being unable to fly a visual circuit into HBA, the need for a shared mental model to do it safely and other such comments would make me turn in my grave if I was in one.
Seriously, have new generation airline pilots degraded to the point where they can't accomplish the most simple flying tasks without automatics? Please tell me they can navigate the terminal area without LNAV; figure a descent without VNAV; hand-fly a visual approach looking out the window; fly an ILS without a flight-director – or is this whole thread just a piss-take.
My usual ports (MEL, SYD, ADL, PER, BNE, CNS, OOL, LST, HBA, CBR) offered daily opportunities to do just that. Many of the comments on this thread strike me as quite naive about the need to use automatics full-time. Raw-data and hand-flying is not some kind of crisis situation.
The comment about the FO being unable to fly a visual circuit into HBA, the need for a shared mental model to do it safely and other such comments would make me turn in my grave if I was in one.
Seriously, have new generation airline pilots degraded to the point where they can't accomplish the most simple flying tasks without automatics? Please tell me they can navigate the terminal area without LNAV; figure a descent without VNAV; hand-fly a visual approach looking out the window; fly an ILS without a flight-director – or is this whole thread just a piss-take.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Sunny QLD
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly it's real. Many f/o's I fly with when I suggest an eyeball approach on a sunny day with using only the force is turned down half the time and the autopilot is left in until lined up on final. Tragic.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Automation solves many problems and creates many more...
Visual circuits and go arounds with low level offs are great examples of automatics making normal flight manoeuvres quite tricky also LNAV and VNAV approaches that are not runway aligned mean lots of switching and resetting MCPs and heading bugs and flight directors that maybe giving "false" information.
I think Sim time is mostly wasted which is a shame. For the LOE exercise you have most likely read the cheat notes and know what to suspect. For the usual laps around the block for the IR renewal, everyone gets the hang of that after a while... Sim time well spent could provide a answer Jet upset/airspeed failure is prob more useful than an NBD
Visual circuits and go arounds with low level offs are great examples of automatics making normal flight manoeuvres quite tricky also LNAV and VNAV approaches that are not runway aligned mean lots of switching and resetting MCPs and heading bugs and flight directors that maybe giving "false" information.
I think Sim time is mostly wasted which is a shame. For the LOE exercise you have most likely read the cheat notes and know what to suspect. For the usual laps around the block for the IR renewal, everyone gets the hang of that after a while... Sim time well spent could provide a answer Jet upset/airspeed failure is prob more useful than an NBD
Are any of you guys actually in an airline?
All airlines i have been in (which admittedly is only 2) dont hand the keys of a $250m aircraft to a pilot and tell them to fly how ever they think best suits their need to maintain hand flying proficiency. Most airlines have a "maximum use of automation policy", which is closely monitored through LOSA and FOQA.
The old "back in my day" and " when men were men" is just reliving days gone by and those days are never coming back. In todays environment we are employed to fly the aircraft the way the company wants. If you are in a company that allows total pilot discretion as to the level of automation used, and the operation lends itself to hand flying, then good luck to you and make the most of it. I envy you.
As for those of us who are governed by our SOP's and lack of opportunity to hand fly, then I'm afraid the reality is that the degraded level of skill dictates the need to use automatics as much as the SOP's
My company SOP's dont prohibit our pilots from hand flying, but I'm yet to meet one who thinks that after a 14hr sector a visual approach is the safest option. At least not one who has been doing the job for more than a year. Bearing in mind that if there is an exceedence picked up during the approach he will get a please explain from the safety department.
As i stated earlier, with company's continually looking to drive down training costs, training departments rarely get the opportunity to train any more than the min reg requirements, which is one hand flown ILS a year, and that is usually done from established on final and configured. In my view that is not likely to give a pilot enough confidence to try the same in a real aircraft with 400 punters in the back.
Short haul flying, however, is probably a totally different beast, and i haven't done that for 20 years, and back then we used to hand fly a lot.
All airlines i have been in (which admittedly is only 2) dont hand the keys of a $250m aircraft to a pilot and tell them to fly how ever they think best suits their need to maintain hand flying proficiency. Most airlines have a "maximum use of automation policy", which is closely monitored through LOSA and FOQA.
The old "back in my day" and " when men were men" is just reliving days gone by and those days are never coming back. In todays environment we are employed to fly the aircraft the way the company wants. If you are in a company that allows total pilot discretion as to the level of automation used, and the operation lends itself to hand flying, then good luck to you and make the most of it. I envy you.
As for those of us who are governed by our SOP's and lack of opportunity to hand fly, then I'm afraid the reality is that the degraded level of skill dictates the need to use automatics as much as the SOP's
My company SOP's dont prohibit our pilots from hand flying, but I'm yet to meet one who thinks that after a 14hr sector a visual approach is the safest option. At least not one who has been doing the job for more than a year. Bearing in mind that if there is an exceedence picked up during the approach he will get a please explain from the safety department.
As i stated earlier, with company's continually looking to drive down training costs, training departments rarely get the opportunity to train any more than the min reg requirements, which is one hand flown ILS a year, and that is usually done from established on final and configured. In my view that is not likely to give a pilot enough confidence to try the same in a real aircraft with 400 punters in the back.
Short haul flying, however, is probably a totally different beast, and i haven't done that for 20 years, and back then we used to hand fly a lot.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
virginexcess, I am genuinely saddened by your comments.
I was in an airline (Ansett) and I have to say (after reading this thread) they had a very liberal attitude towards such things; they trained you the best they knew how (and my training/check Captains were simply outstanding), and sent you out to do the job how you saw fit (within reason) – particularly the case for WA, I am told.
The majority of pilots would disconnect the autopilot and turn off the flight director when cleared for a visual approach. A few of the pilots flew raw data departures. Almost all "looked through" the flight director while hand-flying (SIDs etc) and waited for it to catch-up to the current situation rather than follow it blindly. I recall one Captain entering the circuit at Cairns on a visual approach, quite safely hand-flying (and giggling) on a circuit while downwind at 320 KIAS on a "maintain best-speed" approach.
Power and attitude for various manoeuvres was talked about during training and we were expected to know them.
The lowest time pilots were around the 5000 hour mark and the more experienced were 10,000-15000 +.
These days I regularly hand-fly a circuit with no FD after a 15 hour duty and it's a piece of cake. I am in despair about some of the comments on this thread and how the industry is developing.
It seems to me that the airlines are being overrun by a bunch of blouses that have no feel for what it takes to grab a plane by the gonads and put it where it needs to be. The bells and whistles attached to a basic set of wings and engines is great progress, but it should not be turning the pilots into a bunch of eunuchs too scared to fly without them.
I was in an airline (Ansett) and I have to say (after reading this thread) they had a very liberal attitude towards such things; they trained you the best they knew how (and my training/check Captains were simply outstanding), and sent you out to do the job how you saw fit (within reason) – particularly the case for WA, I am told.
The majority of pilots would disconnect the autopilot and turn off the flight director when cleared for a visual approach. A few of the pilots flew raw data departures. Almost all "looked through" the flight director while hand-flying (SIDs etc) and waited for it to catch-up to the current situation rather than follow it blindly. I recall one Captain entering the circuit at Cairns on a visual approach, quite safely hand-flying (and giggling) on a circuit while downwind at 320 KIAS on a "maintain best-speed" approach.
Power and attitude for various manoeuvres was talked about during training and we were expected to know them.
The lowest time pilots were around the 5000 hour mark and the more experienced were 10,000-15000 +.
These days I regularly hand-fly a circuit with no FD after a 15 hour duty and it's a piece of cake. I am in despair about some of the comments on this thread and how the industry is developing.
It seems to me that the airlines are being overrun by a bunch of blouses that have no feel for what it takes to grab a plane by the gonads and put it where it needs to be. The bells and whistles attached to a basic set of wings and engines is great progress, but it should not be turning the pilots into a bunch of eunuchs too scared to fly without them.
I don't think the big problem is "old blokes" forgetting. What if you never had the ability in the first place-ala cadets? It is like getting your "L" plates, never being allowed to practice driving and then being expected to drive like an ace on a slippery road. They will not have the years of a non-automated cockpit to fall back on with inevitable results I think.
Nunc est bibendum
What if you never had the ability in the first place-ala cadets?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right on FA.
It is not just FOs who cannot fly. In some airlines I worked for the captains could not fly either. If it did not have an ILS they simply could not manage. Visual Approach? Banned by the Chief Pilot so as not to embarrass the captains.
If I could not at least equal the automatics I would quit.
All that stuff about tired, busy airspace, complex approaches etc is just a way of saying "I'm scared, Mommy!"
It is not just FOs who cannot fly. In some airlines I worked for the captains could not fly either. If it did not have an ILS they simply could not manage. Visual Approach? Banned by the Chief Pilot so as not to embarrass the captains.
If I could not at least equal the automatics I would quit.
All that stuff about tired, busy airspace, complex approaches etc is just a way of saying "I'm scared, Mommy!"
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: with the porangi,s in Pohara
Age: 66
Posts: 983
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great post F/A.....but would also agree with the reality of the previous post....his point is also a valid one
I, on every possible occasion,request that the F/O fly visual apps(when conditons are appropriate),ie...no A/P,F/D,A/T......if they cock it up so be it....but in reality for some of these young fellas to "get the penny to drop"...they have to be able to "see" their shortcomings....and that applys to myself also
.....any operation that "Ban,s' these OP,s obviously has not seen their worth.and I have worked for these types.......I dont make the rules,but Ive been known to break a couple
Some of these young fellas that show up in the right seat and have been trained in flight schools in Oz/usa/EU.......show up with just over a couple of hundred hours.....from a single engine #.....thrown into the Airbus series,and your expecting them to hand-fly this stuff.....your bloody joking me!!!!!.....its not right,but its the way it is.......you just have to let them try a couple of times to find out where they really are in their training..........and it doesnt take much to find out,that they are not very far along at all
.....not trying to be disrespectful at all...but this is the stark reality of what some of us are dealing with
I, on every possible occasion,request that the F/O fly visual apps(when conditons are appropriate),ie...no A/P,F/D,A/T......if they cock it up so be it....but in reality for some of these young fellas to "get the penny to drop"...they have to be able to "see" their shortcomings....and that applys to myself also
.....any operation that "Ban,s' these OP,s obviously has not seen their worth.and I have worked for these types.......I dont make the rules,but Ive been known to break a couple
Some of these young fellas that show up in the right seat and have been trained in flight schools in Oz/usa/EU.......show up with just over a couple of hundred hours.....from a single engine #.....thrown into the Airbus series,and your expecting them to hand-fly this stuff.....your bloody joking me!!!!!.....its not right,but its the way it is.......you just have to let them try a couple of times to find out where they really are in their training..........and it doesnt take much to find out,that they are not very far along at all
.....not trying to be disrespectful at all...but this is the stark reality of what some of us are dealing with
Last edited by pakeha-boy; 8th Aug 2012 at 11:02.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't flown for many years but was astonished with a story I heard last year when talking to a domestic 737-800 captain. From what I recall the approach was visual from the north into Sydney 16 and 17 miles out in CAVOK. His female F/O was PF and she asked him if he minded if she disconnected the autopilot to practice a hand flown ILS ready for her up-coming sim check. He said no problems whereupon she thanked him warmly adding that very few captains she flew with would let her hand fly on request. He raised his eyebrows on that remark but thought nothing more.
As the aircraft closed on the localiser and now around 12 miles the captain noticed the PF was still on full automatics and had not yet gone "click-click"
He suggested she disconnect but she said "Not yet, captain - I don't want to overshoot the centre-line so I will leave the AP in" Soon after the AP captured and again the captain hinted that if she was serious about wanting to hand fly she had better do it now rather than leaving it to the flare before going "click-click".
It gets better. With a deep breath she announced she was going to disconnect the AP which she did. A few seconds later the captain suggested she should also disconnect the AT as per Boeing SOP. She said she would leave that until later as it gave better speed control. By now she was flying with both hands on the control column with AT and FD engaged.
The captain then suggested she should turn off the FD if she was serious about hand flying the ILS in CAVOK. She said she would rather leave the FD on in case it was needed for a GA.
Later with all this drama over a straight forward visual approach down the ILS, the captain asked the first officer where she had done her Boeing 737-800 type rating. She replied she had bought it in Australia where the provider insisted that full use of all automatics must be used from the very first simulator session. She had rarely flown without a flight director.
Here then was another classic case of a first officer brought up to only hand fly when all other avenues of automation are exhausted. The company captains were the crux of the problem - not her ability as first officer.
With a typically disinterested captain his attitude would have a marked bearing on her enthusiasm to keep her hand in and in the end it meant she lost the confidence needed to be able to fly the aeroplane by hand. The problem described is much wider than people may think.
As the aircraft closed on the localiser and now around 12 miles the captain noticed the PF was still on full automatics and had not yet gone "click-click"
He suggested she disconnect but she said "Not yet, captain - I don't want to overshoot the centre-line so I will leave the AP in" Soon after the AP captured and again the captain hinted that if she was serious about wanting to hand fly she had better do it now rather than leaving it to the flare before going "click-click".
It gets better. With a deep breath she announced she was going to disconnect the AP which she did. A few seconds later the captain suggested she should also disconnect the AT as per Boeing SOP. She said she would leave that until later as it gave better speed control. By now she was flying with both hands on the control column with AT and FD engaged.
The captain then suggested she should turn off the FD if she was serious about hand flying the ILS in CAVOK. She said she would rather leave the FD on in case it was needed for a GA.
Later with all this drama over a straight forward visual approach down the ILS, the captain asked the first officer where she had done her Boeing 737-800 type rating. She replied she had bought it in Australia where the provider insisted that full use of all automatics must be used from the very first simulator session. She had rarely flown without a flight director.
Here then was another classic case of a first officer brought up to only hand fly when all other avenues of automation are exhausted. The company captains were the crux of the problem - not her ability as first officer.
With a typically disinterested captain his attitude would have a marked bearing on her enthusiasm to keep her hand in and in the end it meant she lost the confidence needed to be able to fly the aeroplane by hand. The problem described is much wider than people may think.
Last edited by Tee Emm; 8th Aug 2012 at 13:04.
I couldn't think of anything better than steaming into a circuit at 320 kts, having managed my profile sufficiently to give me a nice level segment, run the gear and flaps and be stable at the appropriate stage in the approach. How rewarding! Or to have done the same thing, made a meal of it, learnt something about myself and applied it to the next approach. Again, how rewarding!
Sadly, some aspects of that era have passed me by, but the onus to learn, make mistakes and limit their reappearance remain. I love making the 737's automatics work for me. Mr Boeing put it there for a reason and if you know it's limitations it works very well. I love even more removing those automatics, doing what it is that I love to do, with a healthy respect for my limitations, and achieving the same result.
I'm sure aviators through the ages have assessed those who carry the torch after them a little harshly. As sure as death and taxes, there will always be someone who operated before you, and did it harder and better with less going for them and more going against them. How we approach our craft within the environment we operate in and restrictions we have imposed on us, I think, is more relevant.
Sadly, some aspects of that era have passed me by, but the onus to learn, make mistakes and limit their reappearance remain. I love making the 737's automatics work for me. Mr Boeing put it there for a reason and if you know it's limitations it works very well. I love even more removing those automatics, doing what it is that I love to do, with a healthy respect for my limitations, and achieving the same result.
I'm sure aviators through the ages have assessed those who carry the torch after them a little harshly. As sure as death and taxes, there will always be someone who operated before you, and did it harder and better with less going for them and more going against them. How we approach our craft within the environment we operate in and restrictions we have imposed on us, I think, is more relevant.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Off-the-shelf type ratings can work for a low-time candidate if they can fly properly in the first place. An example are the RAAF Challenger pilots who do a type-rating described as drinking from a fire hose with about 200 hours in their log-book – but punch well above their weight. Much of their line-training is flying an empty aircraft (plenty of circuits, visual approaches and IAPs), generally resulting in a pretty capable pilot, certainly not totally reliant on automatics to fly safely. In fact if the automatics fail, they are more likely to say. "Yahoo", not "Oh hell".
The problem with the off-the-shelf ratings is they are designed with optimistic assumptions about a candidates ability, resulting in a minimalist course to stay competitive with other providers in a race to the bottom. Unless they have a particularly good training Captain and an enlightened flight department, the line-training simply reinforces using automatics exclusively. In the future, the good training Captains will retire and be replaced with iCadets resulting in a kind of "Plesantville" training department – and in the case of Air France – giving the world a couple of pilots that can't fly a basic power and attitude to stay upright while the computers have a hiccup.
The problem with the off-the-shelf ratings is they are designed with optimistic assumptions about a candidates ability, resulting in a minimalist course to stay competitive with other providers in a race to the bottom. Unless they have a particularly good training Captain and an enlightened flight department, the line-training simply reinforces using automatics exclusively. In the future, the good training Captains will retire and be replaced with iCadets resulting in a kind of "Plesantville" training department – and in the case of Air France – giving the world a couple of pilots that can't fly a basic power and attitude to stay upright while the computers have a hiccup.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Sydney, AUSTRALIA
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIGLES
Joker89
I can tell you from being in the same position as the AIR FRANCE A330.And the same problem.Your airspeed decays so rapidly, you do not have time to make a committee decision.It's back to basics,attitude and power,once stabilised,solve the problem. Reinstate your your automatics, if possible.No fancy footwork.
I can tell you from being in the same position as the AIR FRANCE A330.And the same problem.Your airspeed decays so rapidly, you do not have time to make a committee decision.It's back to basics,attitude and power,once stabilised,solve the problem. Reinstate your your automatics, if possible.No fancy footwork.
The problem with the off-the-shelf ratings is they are designed with optimistic assumptions about a candidates ability, resulting in a minimalist course to stay competitive with other providers in a race to the bottom. Unless they have a particularly good training Captain and an enlightened flight department, the line-training simply reinforces using automatics exclusively. In the future, the good training Captains will retire and be replaced with iCadets resulting in a kind of "Plesantville" training department – and in the case of Air France – giving the world a couple of pilots that can't fly a basic power and attitude to stay upright while the computers have a hiccup.
So what's going to happen when all the holes line up and the aircraft sails past the quadruple redundacies on the automatics and the Captain looks across at the First Officer and says.."What are we going to do now??"
How many crashes causal to the loss of the automatics are acceptable before anyone admits that we may have a problem?
