Pilot experience reduced by flight automation

[neville_nobody]

The author obviously has never been anywhere near a 737 if he thinks that automation and technology are a problem in modern aviation design. Given that the 737 Max will be here for 20 years+ there will be numerous generations of pilots to come who will have to manually fly no authrottle no autopilot day in day out. That includes one engine too where you won't have a choice in the matter. They will also not have a EICAS or the benefit of fly by wire. Given it will be so prolific I would suggest that the whole issue of pilots losing basic skills is a bit of a beatup.

[DHC8 Driver]

[quote=LeadSled;10108866]DHC8 driver,
Maybe it will come as no surprise to you, but based on now 50+ years flying, and 35 years in airlines, with the usual Check and Training stints, and with little real change in the "technology" in the last 20, I totally disagree.
Indeed, hand flying straight and level can really sharpen up the scan.
It doesn't have to be a raw data hand flown ILS (or any other approach) to be of value in keeping up hand IF and visual flying skills.
Company/manufacturer "recommendations" to leave the auto-throttle engaged when hand flying are seriously misguided.
Tootle pip!![/quote

Lead Sled

Sorry, my bad. You’re clearly a Boeing man. You speak of autothrottles.

I agree with you that on earlier generation aircraft there was some benefit in having a hand fly - but straight and level in normal law with auto thrust (ie. an Airbus with auto-trim, auto every bloody thing). Not very much to be gained there. You just load up the other pilot and increase the risk of something bad happening.

I’m not saying there is no place for hand flying - I’m just saying there are very few opportunities to do any hand flying that is really beneficial.

These days the sim is the only real chance you get and even then most cyclics are written with the need for max use of automation.

I’m sorry I only have 30 years flying experience with mostly training roles.

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by LeadSled

AercatS2A,
If there is one thing I have learned over many years, it is that the basis of good instrument flight is a good scan, and changes in instrument presentation from WWII to the present day have not altered that fact.

And sitting there watching doesn't cut it, you have to be hands on ---- and something that has always been very obvious to those of us who take notice --- a good instrument scan makes for efficient and confident use of the "automatics" that much better, because you are taking in ("seeing") more of what is actually happening than would otherwise be the case.

This is all true, but it is not fixed by manual flying in the cruise. It is tedious and trivial to fly straight and level. To keep your scan sharpish you need to fly manually in a dynamic situation, take-off and approach for example, even that is not particularly taxing.

When I did my 146 upgrade line training, I had something like six sectors that had to be flown manually due to various autopilot failures. It was not in anyway difficult and I am not one who “practices” manual flight as I think it is a waste of time, you can either do it or you can’t. The problem is that a number of pilots could never do it and increased automation means their lack of basic skills remain unexposed for years. All that manual practice does it’s lets you know which of your colleagues can’t fly, it doesn’t do anything to improve their flying.

[DHC8 Driver]

Originally Posted by AerocatS2A

This is all true, but it is not fixed by manual flying in the cruise. It is tedious and trivial to fly straight and level. To keep your scan sharpish you need to fly manually in a dynamic situation, take-off and approach for example, even that is not particularly taxing.

When I did my 146 upgrade line training, I had something like six sectors that had to be flown manually due to various autopilot failures. It was not in anyway difficult and I am not one who “practices” manual flight as I think it is a waste of time, you can either do it or you can’t. The problem is that a number of pilots could never do it and increased automation means their lack of basic skills remain unexposed for years. All that manual practice does it’s lets you know which of your colleagues can’t fly, it doesn’t do anything to improve their flying.

I tend to agree but there are ways to improve psycho-motor skills. There is plenty of research out there to show that using a PC based flight simulator can help if you are deficient in this area.

[Lookleft]

In the airline that LS came from I was once told by a sim checkie that he would report me to the Chief Pilot unless I stated that I would fly totally by reference to the FD. I had stated that I always look through the FD when manually flying.

[DHC8 Driver]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

In the airline that LS came from I was once told by a sim checkie that he would report me to the Chief Pilot unless I stated that I would fly totally by reference to the FD. I had stated that I always look through the FD when manually flying.

Airbus requires in manual flight if you don’t intend to follow the flight director you should turn both of them off

[Lookleft]

Even in an Airbus the FD on a manually flown ILS doesn't match whats happening with the GS and LLZ.

[DHC8 Driver]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

Even in an Airbus the FD on a manually flown ILS doesn't match whats happening with the GS and LLZ.

I agree - you’ve gotta be able to look though the thing a bit. All pilots should have a basic knowledge of the old equation power + attitude = performance

When I mention this to most of my trainee cadets they look at me like I’m speaking Swahili

[Derfred]

Nothing like a manually flown asymmetric raw data NDB approach from over the aid with no map or DME or GPS, just timing from the aid, turn inbound, get visual at MDA in minimum visibility, at night, with constant wind changes during the approach, then circle to land, do a missed approach, then do the whole thing again to get in.

If they put that in the Sim, most airlines would have to ground all their pilots overnight and teach them how to fly again.

Yet, that’s the kind of thing we had to do to get a multi IFR rating a long time ago. I doubt I could do it now without a fair bit of practice.

Is it relevant today? Probably not, but there is no doubt a pilot’s hands-on skill isn’t what it used to be.

It isn’t just about the scan, it’s about being able to scan, fly, and think simultaneously, while monitoring the radio, radar, remembering checklists, and whatever else is going on. That means you have to be good enough to scan and fly manually while leaving enough brain capacity for everything else. That takes practice.

The trouble is, practicing raw data hand flying in complex or busy situations DOES increase the risk factor, so it isn’t recommended. Save that for the Sim, and do your aircraft manual flying practice in appropriate conditions only.

Incidently, I have noticed that QF are increasing their manual flying practice in the simulators, pleasingly.

As for looking “through” the flight director, certainly on a B737, it is a great idea. You aren’t contributing much to your skills if you just blindly follow a flight director. A flight director will quite happily fly you into the ground, or into a stall, or whatever. Keep your scan up, and you can anticipate any required control inputs before the flight director knows anything about it. A flight director is reactive. A good pilot can be proactive. Fantastic for keeping your skills up, but good to have the flight director there in case you do accidently go soaring through that altitude limit or that heading or that localiser intercept.

It’s all about maintaining awareness. A good pilot knows their attitude, thrust, speed, alitude, and vertical speed at all times. The flight director doesn’t tell you that. Only a scan can. Then with sufficient brain space remaining you can monitor position, weather, radio, fuel remaining, options and intentions - i.e. still stay ahead of the aircraft.

[Lookleft]

As they say in parliament "here here"? Other than the night bit that's how I got my SCPL.

[Centaurus]

As for looking “through” the flight director, certainly on a B737, it is a great idea

Some find it distracting to "look through" a FD. Which is why some pilots when hand flying on instruments prefer to see an uncluttered view of the artificial horizon (a term rarely used nowadays but let's face it, that is exactly what it is) The Boeing advice to switch off the FD if it is not being followed is good advice.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Centaurus

Some find it distracting to "look through" a FD. Which is why some pilots when hand flying on instruments prefer to see an uncluttered view of the artificial horizon (a term rarely used nowadays but let's face it, that is exactly what it is) The Boeing advice to switch off the FD if it is not being followed is good advice.

Well, it depends on your definition of “not following” the flight director. I’m not suggesting ignoring the flight director - if I was going to do that for whatever reason, then I would certainly follow Boeing’s advice and turn it off. That would probably only be in a situation where the flight director was giving (or may be giving) bad information. It wasn’t until the AF447 accident that Boeing actually realised that turning flight directors off was a good idea with suspicious data.

But I’m just pointing out that there is difference between “following the flight director blindly” (which my 5yo son could do), and “looking through it”, which to me means the flight director is just one of the many things I am scanning. In fact you can make it a game to start your turn just before the flight director tells you to, or start your level-off, or whatever. Keeps you sharp, and a good pilot can fly more accurately than the flight director with practice. For example, on the B737 the flight director will often take you through the localiser.

I personally think it’s an invaluable skill to still be aware of your attitude at all times. Your attitude is that thing just behind the flight director. You have to be able too look through the flight director to see it. It’s a good habit to be attitude aware at all times, and you need to open your eyes for that.

[Lookleft]

But I’m just pointing out that there is difference between “following the flight director blindly” (which my 5yo son could do), and “looking through it”, which to me means the flight director is just one of the many things I am scanning.

This is what the sim checkie didn't understand at LS airline.

[Derfred]

Originally Posted by Lookleft

This is what the sim checkie didn't understand at LS airline.

Yes, well, just because someone anointed them “checkie” doesn’t suddenly magically fill them with all of God’s wisdom, despite what some of them may think... we are fortunate to have a lot of great checkie’s at my airline, with a few guaranteed exceptions of course. In these kind of situations, most will offer input from experience as “opinion only”, and you can take it or leave it. Different if you’ve breached a hard policy for no reason of course.

The other fantastic thing at my airline is that they have actually moved from “checking” to “training”. They started it about 15 years ago by renaming Senior Check Captains to Training Captains, but then nothing else much changed. But a few years ago they actually started doing it, and it’s going great, according to both line pilots and trainers.

For example, this year, I’ve done a Sim involving about an hour of hand flying with no airspeed indicators, to landing (attitude and thrust for an hour, and you learn to trust attitude and thrust, best of all). And another one involving about an hour of hand flying with no hydraulics, to landing (better than a workout at the gym). They are both very challenging exercises. This kind of thing has never been done in recurrent Sim sessions before, so I think QF are really getting their act together on this subject.

[maggot]

Well, der, Fred.


Great posts

[Lookleft]

And another one involving about an hour of hand flying with no hydraulics,

I once got to fly a 737 on a test flight in manual reversion. Much easier in the aeroplane than in the sim.

[Street garbage]

Derfred, are you on the 73? Learning (and training), certainly like you mentioned, doesn't happen on the Airbus fleets...

[LeadSled]

In the airline that LS came from I was once told by a sim checkie that he would report me to the Chief Pilot unless I stated that I would fly totally by reference to the FD. I had stated that I always look through the FD when manually flying.

Lookleft,
There you go, lack of standardization. In the setups in the B747-200/200, if you didn't "look through" the FD display and at the raw data, and suitably anticipate, when hand flying you would always be "behind the aeroplane".

And that is exactly what was most commonly taught/recommended. However, I will admit that there was always a very small proportion of Check and Training Captains who had some very strange ideas. I could almost name who you are talking about, a real "outlier". And very ordinary stick and rudder man, himself.

The FD setup on the original B707-138 was, by all accounts almost useless, most preferred to leave it off, I can't speak from experience there.

Most B707-300/320 I operated had Collins FD-108, lovely device.

Once we got to "digital" aeroplanes, B767/744, we were still stuck with "split cue" but it didn't have the issues of the "classics".

And, yes, always Boeing, but I really don't see that that has anything to do with the importance of maintaining a proficient scan ---- have you seen the recommended endorsement syllabus for the A350??

Tootle pip!!

PS: Derfred,
The whole point of having a well practiced and competent scan is so that you have the capacity to do all the other things you have to do, that you are not so busy keeping the shiny side up, and the speed and altitude as required, that you wind up with almost tunnel vision.

PS2: Derfred, re. post #30, you left out the short handled broom.

[Lookleft]

LS it was one of the "checkies" that QF used on 2 of the 4 sims that weren't done by QF checkies. This person had flown 744 with an Asian legacy carrier. I still look through the FD on the Airbus and let it catch up with what I am doing not what it thinks I should be doing. The young F/O's I fly with fly the F/D perfectly but often don't notice that the track diamond is not actually on the track displayed on the TO waypoint on the PFD.

[currawong]

Talking to a newly minted PPL recently, on his way to a CPL.

Was astounded to hear he is already a regular user of the auto-pilot.

I think perhaps he is making things harder for himself.

Or perhaps that sort of thing is encouraged these days.