Pilot experience reduced by flight automation
 

From today’s Australian: https://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...a8c818e66083fd

BYRON BAILEY
The Australian12:00AM April 6, 2018

Last month was not a good month for aviation safety statistics.

A Bangladeshi airliner crashed on approach into Kathmandu with 71 fatalities.

A day before, a private Turkish Challenger 604 crashed into the Zagros Mountains 370km south of Tehran, killing all 11 on board.

Conflicting reports put the private jet in cruise at 36,000 feet one hour 21 minutes after leaving Sharjah for destination Istanbul when it suddenly climbed to 37,700 feet before entering a pronounced descent, then crashing. The black boxes — flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder — have been recovered and should be able to answer the question of why this popular and safe large jet crashed.

I am interested because I fly a private Challenger 604. Its avionics and electrical/hydraulic systems place it in the small air*liner class plus, as a wide-body type jet, and it is very comfortable for the rich passengers, giving the cabin a loungeroom feel. The passengers of the crashed jet were Mina Basaran, socialite daughter of a wealthy Turkish businessman, and seven of her female friends who were attending her hens party in Dubai — now playground of the rich and famous (Beirut is passe).

The crew of two pilots and one cabin attendant were all female and the captain was a former military pilot.

There are several possibilities that come to mind.

There were thunderstorms active in this area of Iran so could it have been like the Asian Airbus A320 that crashed several years ago when the pilots lost control entering thunderstorm activity.

Perhaps the captain was trying to climb over a thunderstorm and stalled because the descent was rather sudden, which may indicate loss of control.

Maybe they had picked up some ice on the wings — unlikely because the Challenger has excellent anti-ice systems but they rely on the pilots to turn them on. The B777 anti-ice systems, in contrast, are automatic.

The Challenger, which has a supercritical wing, requires careful removal of even the smallest amount of ice before takeoff in low temperatures. When first introduced into service it suffered several takeoff accidents.

Could it be a bomb on board? The descent was sudden and the crew allegedly reported a technical fault. Sharjah is more like a secondary airport that is popular with eastern European airlines, especially Russian. I cannot comment on its airport security.

Sharjah is a small emirate — one of the seven that make up the United Arab Emirates — and is overshadowed by its close, glamorous neighbour Dubai.

The reason the jet was parked at Sharjah was probably because of lack of room at Dubai International airport.

Maybe Iranian air traffic control played a part. Iran has notoriously suspect control and poor communications. I encountered a Russian IL76 military/commercial freighter reciprocal on the airway over Iran. I was in a B777-300 and, according to the EOWE (east odds/west evens) flight level rule, cruising at cleared level 32,000 feet on the way to Paris.

This bogey popped up at my level at 40 nautical miles on my traffic alert and collision avoidance system at my altitude, the wrong altitude, and Tehran ATC was not answering so I immediately deviated 5nm right to let it pass.

Then, of course, comes the human element. The biggest problem facing airlines and corporate aviation is a lack of manual flying skills because of the dumbing down of pilots. The Challenger 604, same as the Airbus and B777, is highly automated. Immediately after gear retraction on takeoff the autopilot is engaged.

Lateral navigation and speed are all programmed before engine start into the flight management system computers, which then fly the aircraft to the destination.

The approach at destination is normally flown by the autopilot after the pilots enter arrival and runway details into the computer. Late on final approach the pilot flying disconnects the autopilot and lands the aircraft.

What this means is, on a typical — for example, nine-hour — flight, the pilot is hands-on for only several minutes. This is safe as modern aircraft are so reliable that air travel is safer than driving a car. The problem occurs when something unexpectedly goes wrong and puts the pilots out of their comfort zone.

Pilots get to refresh their aircraft systems knowledge and emergency handling skills every six months in simulators. Qantas does this every three months for its pilots.

However, even in the simulator, most training is done with the autopilot engaged as it is more reliable to fly an approach, even with an engine failed, with the autopilot engaged.

What this means is if you put a pilot in a situation they have never encountered the lack of a solid basic flying skill will surface.

Take, for example, the Air France A330 that after pitot tube icing, suffered a pilot-induced stall at high altitude. The panicked pilot froze and without realising it held the aircraft in the stalled condition all the way down until it crashed into the sea.

Corporate aviation, same as airlines, is subject to the same tyranny of cost. Pilot training is expensive and the trend, especially overseas, is for crews is to be less experienced even though on paper they appear to be equally qualified.

As remarked recently by the hero of the Hudson River landing of US Airways flight 1549 in New York in 2009, Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, “There is no substitute for experience in an unexpected and difficult situation.”

The automation of modern aircraft has resulted in the dumbing down of pilots, with many lacking adequate manual flying skills. But I guess it is something that aviation has to live with.

Byron Bailey, a veteran commercial pilot with more than 45 years’ experience, is a former RAAF fighter pilot and trainer. He was a senior captain with Emirates for 15 years.

Why bother waiting for facts when you can just speculate!

The dumbing down is very true. :ugh:

I don't however believe it is something we have to live with. It is all about the airlines and their financial managers that usually know very little about operations having influence over matters that they see as cost saving, which may be true in the short term but at what risk in the long term?

Wing ice at 36,000 ft @ .8+?

Highly highly highly doubt it.

To be honest, it is just the way the world is going and it is something that we probably have to accept. Even the newbies who are training now are doing so in aircraft with full Glass Cockpits, FADEC etc, this is not going to return to the old bells and whistles style. Airliners are not going to change and are only go to get more and more automated, the answer to this is changing up the simulator training that we receive. Perhaps a couple of extra complete no jeopardy sims inserted between cyclics that focus purely on high altitude handling and unusual attitudes wouldn't go amiss. There has been a bit in the syllabus recently but it is very much a case of it being 'wedged' in between the usual checking tasks and if you fluke a good stall recovery then its a big tick and move on quickly.

An excellent idea that, unfortunately, is unlikely to get traction in the current stretched training environment. At the very least this type of sim session would prepare you for when a bogey pops up at your FL.

Folks,
And what about doing a bit of hand flying each sector, to keep the skills up to date??
A "glass cockpit" as opposed to old electro-mechanical instruments does not preclude you hand flying, only ratbag "airline policies" do that.
Tootle pip!!

Not so easy to do in these days of RVSM and RNP. And hand flying in straight and level flight or even on an ILS with auto thrust and flight director engaged does little to enhance anyone’s manual flying skills.

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!!

There is one way to partially fix the problem of automation dependency; or at least to ensure pilots are forced to hand fly occasionally. That is for CASA to mandate that the usual two hour IPC in a simulator must consist of 50% automatics and the other 50% manual raw data. The only problem with that suggestion if ever implemented (it will never happen) would be the failure rate of IPC's would rocket to unacceptable levels.;)

You are correct, C. Mandatory manual flight and manual throttle from an intercept heading would result in an unacceptable number of "deferred successes!"

Is it a lack of Manual skills or a lack of situation awareness of automation/environment conditions??

Was it actually a technical issue with the aircraft??

Does it matter that the crew were all female??

Is QF safer because they do 1 sim every three months instead of 2 sims every 6 months?

Was the Air Asia flight really brought down by thunderstorm activity??

Is pilot experience solely based around how good a pole driver you are??

Does.30+ years of experience make you a safer pilot??

This article creates more questions than it attempts to answer.

As you can gather I was a bit disappointed with this article when I read it this morning.

I was also a bit disappointed with this article. The initial headline and subject is interesting but it almost reads like a thought bubble/opinion piece by the author.

But I believe this is an area of aviation that will be explored further over the next few years. Most of us could agree that the pendulum had swung to far towards automation vs flying ability.

Click bait
 

As others have stated the title of the article was not an accurate description for what was essentially an opinion piece. It appears the driving factor for the article was that the author, occasionally, flies the same model Challenger.

A refreshed version of something like this classic, tailored for the masses, and print media, would have been far more deserving of the title.

I would love to! However, there is also another part of the issue - "I don't need any troubles" attitude expressed by a certain percentage of pilots I know. It is hard to blame company policies when I see that there isn't much of a desire to make them any different as it will lead to increased personal responsibility.

In my view - hand flying has to become mandated in a company manual in some shape or form. Perhaps something like a sector hand flown up to and below FL100 once in a couple of days (more the merrier). There also has to be a desire to do this.

I think the issue stems from initial flight training and won’t be fixed by mandating manual flight in airliners. I see pilots who “practice” manual flight often who are still bad at it, pilots who don’t practice much at all who are very good when their skills are called upon, and everything in between. Manual flight once the aircraft is cleaned up and climbing is tedious and I don’t particularly want to be forced to do it. If you want good flying skills, make aerobatics mandatory part of flight training. Even then, some folk just aren’t all that gifted when it comes to flying and no amount of practice or training will fix it.

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.

And, I would suggest, greatly reduce the probability of mode confusion.

And, on the day when things go pear shaped, because of your confidence and competence, you will not hesitate to do what you are paid to do: "Fly the aeroplane".

The very serious incident to a Qantas A330 north of Perth a few years back was a good example of "Fly the aeroplane" ---- to save it!!

Tootle pip!!

Explain how you scan a pfd? All the information you need is right there..?

I suppose keeping an eye on the engine gauges and suspect first officers is a scan

Mattyj, you don't mean that!!??!! Do you really think a scan is not required within a PFD?? Sure, the info is "closer" but I for one can't absorb and process "all" the data without moving my gaze from attitude to altitude to vs to attitude to airspeed etc etc etc. Sure, it's "all" closer than on a traditional steam gauge panel, but an internal scan is still paramount! Maybe I'm just not very good at it!

That certainly helps. The problem is that it is manual raw data instrument flying skills that are degrading because of the accent on full automation. That is nothing new because it all started with the introduction of the first glass cockpits and ever more sophisticated automation.

Granted, these manual instrument flying skills may rarely be called upon in the career of an airline pilot. But, having observed countless simulator sessions where for various reasons, manual flying on instruments was introduced, there were some pilots who were brilliant and flying on rails but a higher proportion who lost situational awareness and simply were unable to cope without the automatics. Not a heart warming sight at times. And that's in a simulator let alone a real aeroplane.

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.

[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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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:ok:) 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.

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.

Well, der, Fred.


Great posts

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

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

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.

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.

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.