Training & Autopilot, Flight Director, other Gadgets

[INNflight]

Good day everyone,

To begin with, I am not a FI and not an examiner, but the recent posting in the news forum re. the Air India mishap made me want to get input of you all, who actually try to make sure future pilots are capable of saving the day should they need to.

My completion of Cpl Ir training in the US (am now flying under JAR in Europe though) is just two years down the line, so I don't consider myself particularly experienced or a very senior, old-generation pilot.

Still, I was lucky enough to learn on old 1960-1970 SP aircraft, and can say I have - never - in my first 250hrs as a pilot used an autopilot or flight director.
It was all raw-data VFR & IFR SE/ME training, hands on stick all the time even on 5hr cross-country flights.

I wasn't particularly impressed by that until a few days ago, when I overheard an IR student in the briefing room talking to his CFI and briefing him on his flight preperation.

To quote it freely, he went along the lines of: "The first of today's two legs has a VOR approach with a step-down, so I will let the autopilot fly it and then land manually."

It honestly gave me a chill hearing this student making it sound as a VOR approach is something terrible, unbearably dangerous that he'd rather not hand-fly. Even worse was that the instructor accepted his decision.

I am curious, am I just overly sensitive here or does it seem that the big schools spitting out soon-to-be airline pilots teach too little actual hand flying and instead learn students how to control the systems instead?!?

Any similar experiences, inputs or training methods of you all would be appreciated - I'm curious.

[Duchess_Driver]

I would like to bet that if you ask any ME/IR pilot what the most difficult flying they've done is and most would respond single pilot, actual IMC, non precision approach into an unfamiliar field.

I'm not sure what the current 'legality' of using automatics during test is - but in reality whilst flying routes I'd recommend every chance you get let the system take the strain and just monitor what' s happening. Gives you more time to prepare for the approach.

Could you have miss interpreted the conversation in that the student would auto the route flying and manually fly the approach? If the student was planning to autopilot an approach in one of my lessons then I'm fairly sure that the 'unreliable' autopilot just might rear it's head again at the most inoppertune moment! Maybe his instructor had similar 'fiendish' tricks in store.

[DFC]

in my first 250hrs as a pilot used an autopilot or flight director.
It was all raw-data VFR & IFR SE/ME

The idea of training for the initial IR is that one gets to learn and practice all the required elements until the required standard is demonstrated.

The idea of the Test is to (once again) demonstrate that you can operate to the required standards.

If during training you have significant times where you can use the autopilot because you are not learning anything / demonstrating anything then you are being robbed because droning along in trim at a constant altitude is just as easy as being on autopilot and at 6 to 8 pounds perminute, that is an expensive waste of available practice time.

Of course if you have already demonstrated that you can hand-fly straight and level on instruments then I can not see a reason for not teaching how to use the autopilot (and flight director if there is one). I may also teach you how to fly a VOR approach using the autopilot / flight director provided that you can easily do it without them.

You are paying to learn so why not use (necessary) expenside dead time to learn.

Having said that, there are very few initial IR candidates who honestly have any spare training time!!

In every aircraft where one is fitted the autopilot and flight director (if there is one) is designed to reduce pilot workload. It is not there as a crutch for people who can't do without one.

PS.
Raw data is having the VOR and/or NDB and/or DME information displayed to you. Even if the autopilot is tracking the VOR radial it is still raw data.

If on the otherhand you have an FMS and it is calculating a track to fly and this is displayed to you then this is not raw data but you can still follow the track without having to use an autopilot or flight director i.e. hand fly.

[osmosis]

Proficiency

There is no doubt the student must show hands-on competancy but should he not also show competancy in his aircraft system's management? My exposure to a real functional autopilot was in my twin endorsement just prior to cpl test. I was encouraged to become familiar with and use whatever serviceable equipment was in the aircraft that matched my qualification. Having said that, we generally chose to fly hands-on.

[SNS3Guppy]

To quote it freely, he went along the lines of: "The first of today's two legs has a VOR approach with a step-down, so I will let the autopilot fly it and then land manually."

It honestly gave me a chill hearing this student making it sound as a VOR approach is something terrible, unbearably dangerous that he'd rather not hand-fly. Even worse was that the instructor accepted his decision.

I am curious, am I just overly sensitive here or does it seem that the big schools spitting out soon-to-be airline pilots teach too little actual hand flying and instead learn students how to control the systems instead?!?

The notion of ab-initio training into the airline cockpit has always been a bad idea, but it's alive and well around the world. The concept is that a new-hire can be trained up exactly as the company wants, setting aside the fact that there is never a substitute for experience.

There's little use for autopilot and flight director training at the initial stages, unless one is going to be spending a lot of time in aircraft that utilize them.

We do hand-flown approaches during training and on the line, as well. I prefer to hand fly to altitude and to hand fly the approach and landing, though I also try to utilize the autopilot too...one should stay proficient both ways.

Your description of the student that you overheard sounds like the training was being done to a specific airline regime, mimicking what that individual might do in a particular operation. I doubt it represents the norm in training, or the sum total capability of that particular student or program.

[INNflight]

Thanks for the inputs, I guess your last paragraph may well be true Guppy.
Not passing any judgement, it just felt wrong hearing it that way.

Cheers!

[IO540]

In real flight, one should make maximum use of cockpit automation because it minimises pilot workload and thus maximises safety. Most mistakes which pilots have made which resulted in accidents would not have been made under conditions of lower workload.

The mistake which the European regulators make is not requiring a demonstration of competence with cockpit automation during the initial or recurrent test. This results in hordes of pilots coming out with an IR, etc, often flying a nice sophisticated plane, and not knowing how the autopilot works, not knowing how the GPS works once getting past the simple route / DCT type usage, and when the workload goes up in-flight, they cannot deal with it.

It doesn't matter for ATP students because they don't need to know anything; they will learn what they need to know on their TR training and then in the RHS. But it is a major issue for private pilots, especially owner-pilots.

I bought a new plane in 2002, with good equipment, but never found any instructor who knew

- how the HSI worked (in full)
- how to set up the KLN94 (beyond a simple route load / DCT)
- how the autopilot / HSI system worked
- how the fuel totaliser worked
- etc

and AFAIK this is still the case, 8 years on, where I am based and where there is a pile of flying schools including an FTO. The instructor knowledge situation is positively dire. I imagine nowadays they can mostly program a GNS430 to fly A-B.

When I did the two FAA checkrides (PPL one in a PA28 and the CPL one in my TB20) I was required to show competence on all installed equipment - to the limit of my then license privileges i.e. no need to show GPS approach config on the PPL one.

[Trim Stab]

When I did my IR training we were obliged to fly everything by hand. After my test, I actually had to teach myself how to use the automatic systems properly, as this had not been covered adequately in the course.

In hindsight, I am not sure this was the correct approach. As others have pointed out, knowing how to make full use of the automatic systems is an important skill. Also, part of my capacity was used up flying the aircraft, instead of gaining situational awareness in the procedures. I wonder whether better results might be obtained during IR training by teaching students to fly procedures on the autopilot initially, and then once they have built up situational awareness, advance on to hand-flying everything.

[SNS3Guppy]

In real flight, one should make maximum use of cockpit automation because it minimises pilot workload and thus maximises safety. Most mistakes which pilots have made which resulted in accidents would not have been made under conditions of lower workload.

While I certainly agree that one should know, understand, and be capable of flying through automation, I strongly disagree that one must or should make use of it; particularly all the time.

Automation and supportive devices such as flight directors are tools to be used, but one should be equally comfortable with and without them. One need not use them all the time, either.

The truth is that while automation has certainly prevented problems, it's also been the cause of them, including some notable major fatal mishaps resulting from overreliance on automation.

The flight upset and subsequent severe damage and loss of control of a China Airlines B747SP over the pacific was the direct result of the pilots not being in the loop during autoflight. The American Airlines B757 crash near Cali, Colombia, was the result of overreliance on flight management and automation. Eastern Airlines Flight 401 crash in the Everglades was likewise an automated descent and related to autopilot mismanagement issues.

Automation can be a great thing, but it can also be a curse.

[Tinstaafl]

I think I'm old school in my thoughts. I think that one should be able to safely fly the aircraft without the automatics & whiz bang avionics *and* one should be able to operate all the equipment. Doesn't mean one would hand fly all the time - I use the capabilities of the autopilot/glass HSI/multiple Garmins/MFD/XM weather etc a lot to allow me to devote more of my resources to managing flight. It's not always about safety, either. Pax comfort, reducing flight times & increasing fuel efficiency et al are all considerations, but the ability must be there to complete a flight when the toys break. Anything can fail, leaving you with reduced or minimal equipment.

I believe training has to cover both options. Operating a flight with correct use of the a/p & gizmos is generally less difficult than having to hand fly for extended periods still be able to *think*. Still necessary to be taught how in both cases but the more difficult area is the one that will usually require more practice so training needs to be weighted that way. Also, it tends to be easier to move from basic equipment eg RBI/DI to RMI/HSI than the other way around so I favour teaching on the 'lesser' equipment. The lesser equipment forces a student to develop their ability to visualise what's happening or should be happening which acts as a backup to the whiz bang gear.

[IO540]

but one should be equally comfortable with and without them

The only way that would be the case, taking "equally" literally, is if one's name is this.

Of course the workload will be higher if flying manually

Everybody who flies for real knows that.

Tinstaafl is right, and I have had more than a dozen autopilot failures (the famous KFC225) so I know about flying manually (like, most of the way to Greece and back), but what we now have in Europe is a training system which turns out private pilots who are basically useless.

This doesn't matter since nearly all chuck in flying pretty fast anyway (and reportedly this has been the case since long before cockpit automation was invented) but it severely short-changes those people who wanted to learn to fly for real, and who have the budget and the initiative to do something with their piece of paper.

[DFC]

In hindsight, I am not sure this was the correct approach. As others have pointed out, knowing how to make full use of the automatic systems is an important skill. Also, part of my capacity was used up flying the aircraft, instead of gaining situational awareness in the procedures. I wonder whether better results might be obtained during IR training by teaching students to fly procedures on the autopilot initially, and then once they have built up situational awareness, advance on to hand-flying everything.

Did you not use something like RANT during the course and then an FNPT before moving onto the aircraft?

RANT is where you gain "situational awareness in the procedures", the FNPT adds the basic flying elements along with those procedures and finally the aircraft combines that all in the air for a final polish before test.

How many spare training hours did you have on the IR?

------

Of course the workload will be higher if flying manually

Ohhh yes we know that.

However, if the automation is removed (autopilot and flight director) and the pilot can't cope with the workload then they should not be there in the first place.

We can extend the initial IR course to 75 hours and require all schools to have an approved aircraft with autopilot, flight director and moving map GPS with up-to-date database.

Of course the test would take 4 hours - 2 hours of doing it all manually (like now) and then 2 hours of doing it again with all the whizz bang automatics. If they fail part 1 then they can't attempt part 2.

Try selling that one to AOPA.

In general the IR course serves it's purpose. It produces a pilot who can (when completed correctly) in simple basic terms fly a single (or multi engine) aircraft in the IFR system in IMC safely including coping with certain emergency situations. They may not have much experience but the day they pass the test they have the basic ability to go flyingh without killing thermselves or causing mayhem in the IFR system.

Now, how many of those pilots who become owner pilots (and I include you IO-540) in this question go out and complete a manufacturer approved course of training specific to their aircraft type and equipment fit before using their aircraft?

and AFAIK this is still the case, 8 years on, where I am based and where there is a pile of flying schools including an FTO. The instructor knowledge situation is positively dire. I imagine nowadays they can mostly program a GNS430 to fly A-B.

There is a pile of training organisations near me (in relative terms) and not one of them can teach on the B757/767. They must be rubbish. Fancy providing training for years on the A320, the B747 and the B737 but not knowing anything about the B757? Shocking Shambles.

I know a place that does B757/767 training but does not do A320, B747 or B737 training. Clearly they are missing a vast important piece of knowledge!!

If you want to receive quality instruction then you are going to have to pay for it and not try to do it on the cheap.

Perhaps you are confusing the idea that:

an autopilot will reduce the workload so that you can arrive at the end of a 4 hour flight through complicated airspace in IMC less tired and therefore more able to hand-fly that tricky circling approach in high terrain and minimum weather

with

(what you paint)) - a device that keeps the blue side up for a pilot that can't cope without it?

-----

Autopilot = long legs.

No autopilot = shorter legs for a break.

Only difference that I can see (without going into RVSM / MEL restrictions etc)

[SNS3Guppy]

The only way that would be the case, taking "equally" literally, is if one's name is this.

Of course the workload will be higher if flying manually

Everybody who flies for real knows that.

Utter claptrap.

One can certainly be equally capable with flying through automation as flying manually, and one should be, regardless of the specific time value allotted to doing either one.

Hours do not capability make. Especially "for real."

Flying as far as greece without engaging the autopilot isn't exactly a challenge. I can see where that might seem like quite an adventure if that's the extend of what you do "for real."

This doesn't matter since nearly all chuck in flying pretty fast anyway (and reportedly this has been the case since long before cockpit automation was invented) but it severely short-changes those people who wanted to learn to fly for real, and who have the budget and the initiative to do something with their piece of paper.

This "for real" issue seems to be a big thing for you. Your flying is somehow "more real" than the next person. You're not James Bond, are you?

[IO540]

Been ducking the small arms fire again, Guppy?

[Whiskey Kilo Wanderer]

Scenario-Based Training?

The first of today's two legs has a VOR approach with a step-down, so I will let the autopilot fly it and then land manually

Sounds like something from TRAIN LIKE YOU FLY by Arlynn McMahon

The training appears to be formulated for new Cirrus Owners. This style of training does lean more towards the FAA approach: If it’s in the aircraft, you have to know how to use it.

Safe Flying,
Richard W.

[IO540]

Quote:
Been ducking the small arms fire again, Guppy?
Yes. Why?

My name is Bond. James Bond.

We may have met recently, Mr Guppy. I was carrying one of these. I offered you a cigarette. Remember?

Sounds like something from TRAIN LIKE YOU FLY by Arlynn McMahon

The training appears to be formulated for new Cirrus Owners. This style of training does lean more towards the FAA approach: If it’s in the aircraft, you have to know how to use it.

Scenario-based training is a big thing in the USA, from what I can tell, and highly effective.

[IO540]

Your greatest adventure in life thus far appears to be flying "*most of the way*" to Greece without an autopilot. Apparently that made you a "real pilot" to which end we may all stand in awe.

No, my greatest adventure in life was something I did underneath Brighton Pier when I was 16.

Knowing you, you probably did the same thing, but you did it while trying to escape small arms fire...

[mad_jock]

No, my greatest adventure in life was something I did underneath Brighton Pier when I was 16.

Not many blokes would admit that on a pilot forum. I hope he respected you afterwards.

PS just send me a PM and I will delete it I am just pulling your leg

[BEagle]

raw-data VFR

Do you mean flying the aeroplane by visual references? Shock, horror - that'd get the wannabe people-tube drivers panicking!!

[IO540]

I haven't navigated using visual references since I got the PPL....

I see Guppy's last post has vanished. Must have succumbed to the small arms fire...