Mismanagement of automation

[Geoffersincornwall]

Same again

One of the reasons for starting this thread was to put this issue 'out there' for clarification.

The argument begins with what the manufacturer recommends in his primary literature. The Flight Manual is not totally clear on this subject but the language chosen may give some credence to the idea that the intentions were for the aircraft to be flown 'hands-off' using the ATT mode in combination with any FD mode required. It can then be 'manoeuvred' by the pilot in SAS mode by using the FTR button for short term manoeuvres or by selecting SAS mode on the GCP for longer periods of manoeuvring. It then says that the pilot can at all times 'override' the system and fly as required. I take this to be a reference to the 'fly-through' procedure. The word 'override' does seem to imply that it is not the normal or preferred technique.

I detect in my day to day relationship with those attending our school that there are those that elect to fly using 'fly-through' as a 'primarsy'means of flying. I don't believe this is correct and others from the S92 and EC225 world have reported similar problems of 'misuse'.

We definitely need some words of wisdom from the OEM's. Let's hope the FCOM's will be with us soon.

G.

[Thridle Op Des]

I would be very surprised if the OEMs go into that kind of detail in either an FCOM or even a FCTM (based on an OEM that has published guidance for 30 years)

TOD

[[email protected]]

Geoffers - I think the override concept for 'fly through' is exactly what is intended - if the AP is flying the aircraft you would normally monitor it and let it do its job, but if it does something you don't like or rapid alteration of the flight path is required, the pilot can always move the controls to achieve this without having to disengage the upper modes. Until we get to fly by wire with no physical connection between controls and flying surfaces then this seems the way to go on helos.

HC

For me the most important thing is to be able to use the aircraft's equipment optimally to have it fly the approach whilst you sit back and see the big picture. In the highly unlikely event that you have to fly a manual ILS, that is a backup skill that you have to be able to get by with. So for me, most of the time and effort should be spent on the former, and it should demonstrated to a high standard. For the latter you just have to survive.

how do you demonstrate, to a high standard, the aircraft's ability to fly itself - it simply does what you have asked by pushing some buttons...or is there a special high standard way of pushing those buttons?

No, I never flew with a QHI.

ahhhh,, now I understand

[HeliComparator]

Originally Posted by [email protected]

HC
how do you demonstrate, to a high standard, the aircraft's ability to fly itself - it simply does what you have asked by pushing some buttons...or is there a special high standard way of pushing those buttons?

I think you are being rather norty and you know it!


Its funny how no-one has ever come to grief in the Sim using the automation ... NOT! But as you say, it was all down to the way they pressed those buttons.


I did fly with some QFIs (UAS) and some ex-QHIs (Bristow) but never a real live QHI. This is clearly why I have to fly an automated type.

[Same again]

did fly with some QFIs (UAS) and some ex-QHIs (Bristow) but never a real live QHI

Consider yourself lucky HC.

[Geoffersincornwall]

Crab

I agree. That's a logical conclusion. But it does seem to indicate that the use of the 'fly-through' technique, at least in the 139, is not intended to be a 'normal' or 'routine' way of operating the aircraft.

I make this point for I am trying to build a case against it's routine use on the basis that whilst experienced pilots who are 'in practice' can differentiate between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' use those who are neither could find it leads to mismanagement of the automation with some serious consequences.


G.

[slow n low]

Hi crab..

if the AP is flying the aircraft you would normally monitor it and let it do its job, but if it does something you don't like or rapid alteration of the flight path is required, the pilot can always move the controls to achieve this without having to disengage the upper modes. Until we get to fly by wire with no physical connection between controls and flying surfaces then this seems the way to go on helos.

NH-90 comes to mind...

I can not comment on machines that are not FBW, but in the FBW machine, I have tended to see more 'instability' when pilots try to 'push against' any upper modes that are engaged, usually quickly followed a flurry of 'uncoupling' of said modes, a mini UA or two before they get back on track.
'Push against' / 'fly-through' technique in ATT made has mixed results in my observation. NHI was nice enough to give us a 'TAC' mode just so we would not have to fly-through. (auto trim follow up) I think its quite neat actually..

As I say, nil experience with other types but in the "1" and "0" machine, I would say does not "like" it. I guess I would describe my own approach as either:

(1) Give "George" long term commands and let him fly,
(2) Manipulate "George" via short term commands and let him fly, or
(3) Boot "George" off (completely de-couple upper modes) and fly ourselves.

But try not to fight George...

Maybe our jobs are evolving toward knowing more about exactly what the upper modes will give us (before we engage it) so we don't get caught with the old "um...whats it doing now?" then having to intervene. In the case of rapid flight path alteration, I have found (on this type) banging off the automatics back to ATT mode tends to work best.

I bring this up because eventually FBW surely will be the standard, bringing us closer to our fixed wing cousins. The future is nearly here!!

[[email protected]]

I make this point for I am trying to build a case against it's routine use on the basis that whilst experienced pilots who are 'in practice' can differentiate between 'appropriate' and 'inappropriate' use those who are neither could find it leads to mismanagement of the automation with some serious consequences.

Geoffers, then surely 'inappropiate' use of fly through would be any time the upper modes are engaged and normal manoeuvring is required - then 'appropriate' use of fly through would be when conditions change rapidly (avoiding birds, drones, gliders - any sort of late spot of a hazard) and using the upper modes just isn't quick enough. or when the upper modes aren't engaged.

HC -

I think you are being rather norty and you know it!

me??? surely not



Same again - oh dear, not good enough to do the QHI course then????


slow and low

I bring this up because eventually FBW surely will be the standard, bringing us closer to our fixed wing cousins. The future is nearly here!!

I'm not entirely sure that is a good thing - there have been lots of interesting incidents when the computer thinks it knows best.

[tistisnot]

Surely cannot be as many incidents as when the pilot knew best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Same again]

Same again - oh dear, not good enough to do the QHI course then????

Apparently I was. That is how I know.

[[email protected]]

Good for you - I hope your instructional manner is better than your internet one