Geoffers - I'm not quite sure why you expect EHEST to include a sentence specifically for 139 pilots.

The document is fairly generic, as it has to be, and deals adequately with the different types and levels of automation. The advice about not trimming into turns is only in the section dealing with basic stabilsation mode with AFCS - nowhere else, so why would you assume they mean it applies to upper mode 4-axis?

So, if the 139 has issues with the design (2 AP controls in close proximity causing confusion) then the answer, surely, is better training (unless you get AW to change the cyclic) - not adding a line in an EASA document.

Crab
 

You will see from HC's comments that it's not just the 139 that has a problem with the concept of flying against the springs.

I appreciate that the 'tips' I referred to are neatly confined to the section on the basic AFCS and one could be forgiven for leaving it at that but the reality is that trying to get pilots to break with old habits that originate with this (out of date?) thinking means that if you find the time and space to specifically advise those using a basic AFCS not to trim into a turn then EHEST could do us all a favour and put a few 'tips' under the other sections too. The danger is that seeing those words - "do not trim into the turn" - provides a crutch for those whose preference is to stick with the techniques they grew up with.

If you take Bravo 73's comments as a measure of what is going on out there then clearly there are many 139 pilots beyond those that I see at work, who believe that the fly-through technique is preferred. Apart from any design issues there is the associated problem of mismanaging the upper modes whilst 'flying-through'.

The detailed section at the back of the booklet is all Airbus related but it doesn't say so. The AW 139 is different so it behoves the author to make that clear or at least to say that other types are different.

G.

Link to EHEST doc
 

Thanks Geoffers, in fact I'd seen that before but missed the bit about trimming into turns. Yes it's definitely an AS332L dinosaur hangup. On the AS332L in basic AP mode there are two feedback components when flying against the trim in roll, a rate limiting (SAS) type element and another element trying to return the attitude to datum (wings level, normally) with the magnitude of the latter being proportional to the angle of bank. So in other words there is a pretty direct correlation between stick displacement and angle of bank, eg 1" for 20 deg bank, 2" for 40 deg (just making up those numbers to give the general idea). It is thus pretty easy to hold a steady angle of bank.

On the 225 if the latter element exists it is very weak. When you bank against the springs the bank angle tends to increase and you have to reduce the stick displacement to control it so that you can be at 45 deg bank and yet have the stick just a few mm displaced. It is very very easy to over bank and very difficult to hold a steady angle of bank.

Thus for IMC / night flight it is ABSOLUTELY AND DEFINITELY COMPLETELY THE WRONG WAY TO DO IT AND POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS.

As I've said before, why fly it like this anyway night / IMC anyway? - use HDG mode or higher.

Sigh! I suppose this is the problem with things like EHEST, they are composed of folk who no longer fly and are not fully up to speed with the latest tech.

At least it is only giving general advice on the matter and not making categorical statements. The rest of the doc is, in general, quite good I thought, if a little verbose.

HC the 365 is very similar in that respect but you just have to practise it rather than reverting to HDG all the time. I teach my students to do both and pick the most suitable according to what they are doing at the time.

There are plenty of situations (night circuits and NVD approaches for example as well as chasing an NDB in bouncy conditions) where the upper modes are little use until you are straight and level and using the HDG requires one hand off the controls to keep twiddling the bug - not really practical as it is too slow a process compared to just correcting it manually.

There are plenty of us dinosaurs who can appreciate the use and flexibility a good AP gives you and we utilise the upper modes constantly when appropriate - but not everyone spends hours in the cruise.

Crab...
 

Of course I am not suggesting to never fly with the stick. My point was that when visual references are poor or non-existent, flying against the springs is the worst way to do it (on the 225 at least). When it is necessary to fly manually (the circumstances you describe plus loads more) the better way is to press the trim release and "fly it properly" in order to select the angle of bank or whatever, then release the trim and the aircraft holds that atttitude. This also applies to fore-aft cyclic which is required during takeoff, landing, changing speed etc.

The joy of doing it that way is that, as I said, you only need to make a control input to change bank/pitch/speed, once you have achieved the desired attitude you simply let go and the current attitude is then held precisely whilst you concentrate on the big picture.

It also eliminates any possibility of giving control to an upper mode with the cyclic not in trim, which is a recipe for disaster on many types.

Unfortunately there is a lot of resistance from ex-332L pilots who are not analytical enough to appreciate the fundamental difference between how ATT mode works on the 332L/L2 vs the 225. They like to wobble around I suppose.

HC & Crab
 

The truth is old habits are hard to leave behind, especially when under pressure.

G.

All of the above holds true for the S92 as well. Shortly after introduction into service Sikorsky were surprised that the operators were reporting numerous AP and FD Degrade cautions were being generated. They quickly realised that pilots were constantly flying 'against the springs' rather than flying the aircraft in a trimmed state. I recall Sikorsky issued some sort of notice to operators highlighting that this was the likely cause of the nuisance cautions.

It looks like we have consensus that modern types should generally not be flown against the springs when in a degraded visual environment.

Oops, nearly missed that one. Why on earth would you want to "chase an NDB in bouncy conditions" when you can couple to the FMS, sit back and watch it fly an overlay approach? Another redundant skill! Some people do like to make life hard for themselves (and their passengers). S'pose I'd better not mention gonad size again.


But anyway, two points:


1/ modern helicopters allow you to beep the heading bug with the cyclic beeper and


2/ why the obsession with keeping hands on the stick? Many problems occur due to pilots fiddling with the stick instead of letting the aircraft fly itself - which it does much better than the pilots can ever do (modern helicopters, that is). OK you will want to keep your hand on the stick when the ground is near, but not for an NDB approach to a typical MDH.


You are still lingering in the dark ages crabby!

are you allowed to do that on your IR? Or is it another case of automation-dependence degrading basic flying skills - I can auto couple the ILS all day long but it doesn't make for better piloting skills - remember I am in the business of training pilots, not preparing systems monitors to chauffeur passengers.

I fully agree that pilots need to fully understand their AP systems and select the appropriate modes when desired but to completely rely on automation all the time is to pretend you don't get skill fade or that you are an aviation God who just never gets it wrong.

If living in the Dark Ages means managing automation AND still being able to do it all manually then that's where I will stay thanks.

We have to move away from the notion of 'managing automation' and of being a 'systems monitor'. It is all flying; it's just the way you control the flight path that changes with the specific context or phase of flight.

We need to expand our definition of what it means to 'fly' to one that encompasses full automation, manual flight and everything in between. If a pilot can't adapt to that reality, he has no place in a modern commercial helicopter.

You aren't allowed to do it on your initial IR because it's not type specific. However you are of course allowed to do it on recurrent training/testing for eg a 225 because that is how the aircraft is normally flown. You need to get away from this ludicrous idea that using the automation is somehow cheating / not doing it properly. I can assure you that there are just as many ways to cock up an overlay approach as there are for a manually flown one, they are just different cockups. One should concentrate training on ensuring that the normal way of operating is covered most, with the somewhat esoteric reasons to fly it manually covered just enough to get by.

That said of course you can get the best of both worlds by starting out with an overlay approach and then eg failing the FMS so they have to revert to "manual" ie HDG, IAS and VS/ALT.A. Well that's pretty manual as far as I'm concerned! Of course they get their revenge on you by electing to go-around whilst they sort it out, so you then run out of Sim time!

Anyway it is interesting to note that you are always looking for ways and reasons to fly it manually, I am the opposite. Until you get the hang of the fact that the automation is the main way to fly these types of helis and therefore the most important thing to get right (and the thing with lots of pitfalls and therefore a big training requirement) you are going to remain part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

It is like insisting that most of the flying is done using the emergency throttles because you don't trust those new fangled governor things.

HC and Crab;

Re-reading your posts on this thread I suspect you are thinking the same things, but from different directions. Automation is now a massive part of flying modern rotary and it carries with it potentially massive pitfalls. The last type conversion I did spent a couple of days on how the thing was bolted together, what the limits are etc. and then ten days on the automation. The sim was a day of how it flies, followed by several days of how to programme it. Line training was really about the automation (new type, same job and routes)

BUT, a pilot still has to be a pilot, he still has to be able to fly the thing. Every six months we all go through OPC/IRR which really doesn't cover automation, but in those six months unless a pilot has been practising how to fly without the automatics then his skill will fade to an extent.

I believe that due to time and budgetary constraints not enough is given on conversion to automation, and scarily a single pilot is then reliant on line training and crew room help. The other snag is that the requirement for OPC/LPC really does not apply to a hugely automated aircraft. That is the main reason that we changed training here. OPC/LPC as per the requirement, line training covering the rest, but a good chunk of manual flying in between LPC/OPC to ensure that manual skills don't fade so that when the automatics do go wrong it is not a crisis to deal with it.

SND

SND - yes I think you are right.

I have scant regard for a pilot that can't fly the aircraft manually and HC has similar disdain for those that don't know the AP modes, submodes, degraded modes, FMS programming etc - the solution is somewhere in between as you suggest.

We both want the guys/gals in the cockpit to be as good as possible at their jobs, we just differ in our perspective since our jobs are/were different.

Do you not see the fallacy of that - ie you accept that the role is mostly about automation management, with all its pitfalls, and yet you accept that the OPC/LPC is completely unrepresentative of the way the aircraft is normally flown, such that pilots have to learn automation management skills by means of crew room gossip?

Of course pilots have to maintain basic skills, and indeed in the case of those with a brand new shiny CPL(H) done on a puddle jumper, have to acquire those skills. But surely the OPC/LPC should reflect the normal way the aircraft is operated. Manual flying skill checking should be a small part of that, not the major part.

And yes of course we should practice manual flying skills under the right circumstances, but it seems to me that most of the industry is still lingering in the dark ages. It just doesn't "get" automation even now, still seeing it as cheating.

The only surprise is that gangs of pilots are not rampaging the hangars at night smashing up the new fangled machinery that is depriving them of their birthright to fly manually.

I suspect the difference is that I have scant regard for pilots who can't fly manually when required, and can't fly using the automation to its greatest advantage.

Whereas you have scant regard for pilots who can't fly manually, but if they don't understand the automation or make best use of it then it's a case of "Never mind at least they can fly properly".

HC;

The situation will remain while the only changes that happen to the LPC form are that it is periodically re-numbered. Industry "gets" automation, personally I like the way it frees up my cockpit time, but despite changes from CAP 360 to JAR to EASA the test and training requirements haven't changed. The people cerifying the aircraft and the kit are not paying due attention to the way aircraft are now flown. Changes are on their way, but they are late, and in my view in the SP/IFR world too late.

SND

Well it's funny how we in Bristow managed to shape our LPC/OPCs for the EC225 around how the aircraft are actually used, rather than some anachronistic steam driven idea. Yes the tick box forms are tediously out of date and lacking in modern thinking, but in fact we didn't find that much of an impediment, and that included the regular training and testing we did for a CAA FOI / FTSI who flew the line with us. If it was the CAA's intention to stop us doing it that way, that would have been the opportunity, but they didn't. Ditto during TRE renewals conducted by CAA.

So whilst I'll agree that the CAA/EASA are way behind the drag curve and following meekly instead of leading, ultimately at least in the UK it is not a significant impediment for an operator, it is just an excuse.

Now you are just making stuff up to try and reinforce your feelings of superiority - I have repeatedly highlighted that I expect my pilots to be able to do both - fly manually AND utilise the automation correctly and appropriately.

Were you bullied by dinosaur QHIs early in your flying career?

No, I never flew with a QHI.

But anyway, perhaps you can't see the point, I suppose it is a bit subtle. Perhaps I can explain it better like this:

And for clarity I'm not talking about manual skills where only manual skills are appropriate eg offshore deck landings, winching etc, but such things as instrument approaches.

Your way of thinking seems to be that the most important thing is the manual flying skills to, say, fly an ILS and you expect them to be able to do it to a high standard. If you can do it using the automation that is a bonus, but not a core skill.

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.

I'd liken it to a heli designer who spent a huge amount if time, effort and money on the standby instruments, whilst not really caring if the main instruments were pretty crappy. I think we'd both agree that was a bad approach to design.

Oh and as for feelings of superiority, I'm a retired old codger who lost his medical, you are the (relatively) young hope for the future, with all the power. That's why I'm trying to move you out of the 1980s!

Dinosaurs become extinct - eventually. What most of us mere pilots want is simply consistency.

When conducting a pre-employment sim check in (an unfamiliar) 225 simulator recently I was told by the company TRE/SFI not to trim into turns as 'I know it is easier and more accurate but this company don't do it that way'.

Shortly afterwards when flying with an AW139 SFI I was castigated for not trimming into turns as 'It is far easier and more accurate to do it that way so why don't you do it?'

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.

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

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
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?;)

ahhhh,, now I understand:E

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.

Consider yourself lucky HC.

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.

Hi crab..

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!!

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 - me??? surely not:)



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


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

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

Apparently I was. That is how I know.

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