Modern Training erroding pilot skills
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hear, hear!
Re: 410's post
My sentiments exactly! I have been on empty sectors when it was the FO's leg and I have watched him sat there slumped in absolute boredom, autopilot on and nothing happening. 'How about trying some hand-flying?' just gets me THE LOOK.
I find that very sad, somehow. 99% of the time everything goes very well but then there is the odd night, cross-wind landing at dear old Murtala Muhammed with no centreline lighting when it suddenly becomes noticeable that 'someone' has not been keeping up their handling skills. I am caught in a trap of not wanting to pre-judge the situation and say that I will do this landing 'just in case' and, of course, things only go to rats in the last 20 feet or so, when it's a little too late to take it away. Then you get into a situation where to the PF things didn't feel all that bad while the PNF thought that was not at all a good landing.
When you have this exhaustively-cited trend away from pursuing hand-flying skills (not to the exclusion of keeping up skills in using the automatics) then there is often very little one can do to sort out this sort of problem. Someone doesn't want to learn a skill that's taken to be outmoded and you cannot change their mind.
I was flying with a Training Captain once, when I noticed he had set the MDA to 80 feet AGL. This was in clear weather, so that it wasn't a case of 'busting minimums' but why the low number. The explanation was that this way he could leave the autopilot in as long as possible, just taking it off to flare and land, since he didn't like to hand-fly. Another one of those, 'The auto-pilot can do a far better job of flying this airplane than you can, so always use it!' guys, I guess.
I wouldn't mind this approach so long as they were able to tolerate my own pursuit of expanding my skills envelope as far as possible without either frightening the FO or else spilling someone's coffee. The day when the wind suddenly shifts or there's a big, fat rainstorm just short of the threshold and you need to break off to do a circling approach to the other runway, well, it's a little too late then to think of all those missed opportunities to keep your hand in.
For someone to cite his grandfather's skills in doing repairs to a buggy by candlelight in this context says rather a lot.
My sentiments exactly! I have been on empty sectors when it was the FO's leg and I have watched him sat there slumped in absolute boredom, autopilot on and nothing happening. 'How about trying some hand-flying?' just gets me THE LOOK.
I find that very sad, somehow. 99% of the time everything goes very well but then there is the odd night, cross-wind landing at dear old Murtala Muhammed with no centreline lighting when it suddenly becomes noticeable that 'someone' has not been keeping up their handling skills. I am caught in a trap of not wanting to pre-judge the situation and say that I will do this landing 'just in case' and, of course, things only go to rats in the last 20 feet or so, when it's a little too late to take it away. Then you get into a situation where to the PF things didn't feel all that bad while the PNF thought that was not at all a good landing.
When you have this exhaustively-cited trend away from pursuing hand-flying skills (not to the exclusion of keeping up skills in using the automatics) then there is often very little one can do to sort out this sort of problem. Someone doesn't want to learn a skill that's taken to be outmoded and you cannot change their mind.
I was flying with a Training Captain once, when I noticed he had set the MDA to 80 feet AGL. This was in clear weather, so that it wasn't a case of 'busting minimums' but why the low number. The explanation was that this way he could leave the autopilot in as long as possible, just taking it off to flare and land, since he didn't like to hand-fly. Another one of those, 'The auto-pilot can do a far better job of flying this airplane than you can, so always use it!' guys, I guess.
I wouldn't mind this approach so long as they were able to tolerate my own pursuit of expanding my skills envelope as far as possible without either frightening the FO or else spilling someone's coffee. The day when the wind suddenly shifts or there's a big, fat rainstorm just short of the threshold and you need to break off to do a circling approach to the other runway, well, it's a little too late then to think of all those missed opportunities to keep your hand in.
For someone to cite his grandfather's skills in doing repairs to a buggy by candlelight in this context says rather a lot.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Lausanne
Age: 47
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that automation has improved flight-safety, however an increasing number of recent accidents with highly automated acft appear to be due to a failure to monitor/understand the plethora of automatic systems and what they are doing.
The A320 crash near Strassbourg comes to my mind, the pilots completely failed to notice the high descent rate they had programmed (I think it was 1800 ft/min in a non-precision approach). I wondered that nobody has mentioned that yet.
The A320 crash near Strassbourg comes to my mind, the pilots completely failed to notice the high descent rate they had programmed (I think it was 1800 ft/min in a non-precision approach). I wondered that nobody has mentioned that yet.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the reader thinks that all of the previous posts are from oldies who have nostalgic memories of hand flying and that you personally prefer to plug in the automatics and sit back and ding for the coffee? In other words you are quite satisfied with your hand-flying raw data skills and have no need to prove it?
Next time in the simulator try this simple test of your scan and hand-flying ability. ILS to Cat 1 minima breaking out at 200 ft with the simulator set up with 35 knot cross-wind, no FD, no AT, no autopilot, and on HSI/ILS mode. If you can do a reasonable job of staying within one dot on full scale LLZ and GS and a good landing after becoming visual, you ain't half bad.
Next time in the simulator try this simple test of your scan and hand-flying ability. ILS to Cat 1 minima breaking out at 200 ft with the simulator set up with 35 knot cross-wind, no FD, no AT, no autopilot, and on HSI/ILS mode. If you can do a reasonable job of staying within one dot on full scale LLZ and GS and a good landing after becoming visual, you ain't half bad.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The A320 crash near Strassbourg comes to my mind, the pilots completely failed to notice the high descent rate they had programmed (I think it was 1800 ft/min in a non-precision approach). I wondered that nobody has mentioned that yet.
My lecturer on Software Engineering & Reliability was Peter Mellor, who's quite a well-know talking head in aviation circles, as I understand it. The Habsheim and Strasbourg accidents were used as examples of how software can be doing exactly what it has been told to do, but that the system is not communicating to the user exactly what that is.
As I understand it, the AA 757 at Cali was at least as much down to an out-of-date Jeppesen chart as it was the automation. Offered a straight-in approach rather than the pre-programmed flight plan, they were told to head to Rozo beacon, which was indicated on the chart as 'R'. When 'R' was punched into the FMS, it deleted the previous route completely, including the reference to the 'Tulua' beacon mentioned earlier. The mistake was that as far as the FMS was concerned, 'R' was not Rozo, but the Romeo beacon near Bogota - and unfortunately the mountains lay inbetween the two locations and the rest is history.
I'm a programmer by trade, but I have always felt that automation and manual handling skills are complementary rather than exclusive in nature. The computer should be there to help, *not* to replace. I guess one of the major problems was Airbus's (and to a slightly lesser extent Boeing's) marketing department aiming their sales pitch over the heads of the pilots, hoping that the cost savings of the automation would sell the plane alone.
Several points here:
1) Modern automatics and electronic enhancements have definitely made aviation safer overall. Think TCAS, EGPWS, envelope and assymetry protection, etc.
2) The current man-machine interface in the cockpit is still a long way from perfection. The fact that many incidents/accidents on contemporary aircraft have involved mode/spatial confusion bears this out.
3) Those who trained on/flew older tech' machines developed the ability to create a fairly accurate mental map from not much raw data. Now we have an excess of filtered input but Situational Awareness doesn't seem to have been greatly enhanced in some cases.
4) Even for the eager/dedicated, it can be difficult keep current in handling/raw data flying. With the best will in the world, busy TMAs in bad weather at unsocial hours are not the ideal practice ground.
5) The pilot skillset demography is changing as the old give way to the new - not that one is better than the other but just different in training and experiences.
Interesting times.
1) Modern automatics and electronic enhancements have definitely made aviation safer overall. Think TCAS, EGPWS, envelope and assymetry protection, etc.
2) The current man-machine interface in the cockpit is still a long way from perfection. The fact that many incidents/accidents on contemporary aircraft have involved mode/spatial confusion bears this out.
3) Those who trained on/flew older tech' machines developed the ability to create a fairly accurate mental map from not much raw data. Now we have an excess of filtered input but Situational Awareness doesn't seem to have been greatly enhanced in some cases.
4) Even for the eager/dedicated, it can be difficult keep current in handling/raw data flying. With the best will in the world, busy TMAs in bad weather at unsocial hours are not the ideal practice ground.
5) The pilot skillset demography is changing as the old give way to the new - not that one is better than the other but just different in training and experiences.
Interesting times.
Last edited by FullWings; 29th Aug 2005 at 13:21.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sutton
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes automatics has improved the accident rate overall but three questions.
1 - Since say 1985 how many accidents have been caused by people keeping current with hand flying skills (I cant think of one). Please dont use people taking the auto pilot under totally inappropriate high workload situations (a la Kegworth).
2 - How many accidents have there been with people relying EXCLUSIVELY on the automatics (Several have already been mentioned).
3 - This cannot be answered numerically as there are no stats but how many accidents have been avoided by at least one of the two guys up front being able to cope? Be this with a landing on standby instruments (electrical emergency), exceptionally strong crosswinds (in compact old Europe most destination alternates will be affected by strong crosswinds and it is not that easy to avoid them). Not f/o bashing btw as in my company I know of a situation where the Captain bottled it and insisted the f/o to make the approach and landing. F/o subsequently bullied into keeping quiet. Yes I know he should not be flying...but he keeps passing in the sim.
No it does not hapen often; but a professional needs to be able to say that if it does hapen once in 45 years I will be able to deal with it without stress levels going ballistic and all that this entails.
We all passed an IR but flying is a degradeable skill and, as I said earlier, the CAA are now very concerned that ths skill is being lost. Just because you can jump through hoops and fly a single engine ILS with a flight director every six months does not make you a competent pilot.
Bottom line be good at both. Practice manual flying in appropriate conditions.
1 - Since say 1985 how many accidents have been caused by people keeping current with hand flying skills (I cant think of one). Please dont use people taking the auto pilot under totally inappropriate high workload situations (a la Kegworth).
2 - How many accidents have there been with people relying EXCLUSIVELY on the automatics (Several have already been mentioned).
3 - This cannot be answered numerically as there are no stats but how many accidents have been avoided by at least one of the two guys up front being able to cope? Be this with a landing on standby instruments (electrical emergency), exceptionally strong crosswinds (in compact old Europe most destination alternates will be affected by strong crosswinds and it is not that easy to avoid them). Not f/o bashing btw as in my company I know of a situation where the Captain bottled it and insisted the f/o to make the approach and landing. F/o subsequently bullied into keeping quiet. Yes I know he should not be flying...but he keeps passing in the sim.
No it does not hapen often; but a professional needs to be able to say that if it does hapen once in 45 years I will be able to deal with it without stress levels going ballistic and all that this entails.
We all passed an IR but flying is a degradeable skill and, as I said earlier, the CAA are now very concerned that ths skill is being lost. Just because you can jump through hoops and fly a single engine ILS with a flight director every six months does not make you a competent pilot.
Bottom line be good at both. Practice manual flying in appropriate conditions.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To all the "increased automation is the future, get used to it" guys: While the comparatively ancient space shuttle is close to 100% computerized, Burt Rutan's spaceship is virtually hand flown.
Back to the future.
Back to the future.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bigmouth,
That was kind of the point I was alluding to back on Pg 6 of the thread.
FullWings mentions:
RMC says:
I'm suggesting the inexorable progress of technology might now need to make a sideways/retrogressive (to the futurists?)/progressive (to the luddites?) step to improve the presentation of huge amounts of information to pilots.
Be it HUD or EVS or some new-fangled technology it ought to
In addition, a constraint needs to be placed on the design process along the lines of "this technology shall not further degrade pilots raw handling skills".
Whilst system architecture need not necessarily suffer a constraint on its development as a result of this quest for simplicity, the design of the man-machine interface, IMHO, should indeed, be subject to Occam's Razor.
Great thread.
That was kind of the point I was alluding to back on Pg 6 of the thread.
FullWings mentions:
The current man-machine interface in the cockpit is still a long way from perfection. The fact that many incidents/accidents on contemporary aircraft have involved mode/spatial confusion bears this out.
...the CAA are now very concerned that ths skill is being lost.
Be it HUD or EVS or some new-fangled technology it ought to
...be there to help, *not* to replace...
Whilst system architecture need not necessarily suffer a constraint on its development as a result of this quest for simplicity, the design of the man-machine interface, IMHO, should indeed, be subject to Occam's Razor.
Great thread.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Pilots that hand fly when it's appropriate do so because thay enjoy it. Why do they enjoy it? Well, because they are usually quite good at it. So they stay good at it.
Those that engage the AP as soon as poss after departure and leave it in until the last minute often lack the confidence to hand fly... and sometimes for good reason! If they did hand fly more then initially, safety margins would be eroded slightly because their s.a. is reduced whilst they struggle with some sort of instrument scan. The passengers would probably suffer an uncomfortable ride while all this is going on.. so it is quite understandable why some pilots argue that the AP is safer. They probably just about struggle through their proficiency checks so who cares?
Well, I care actually. I just hope that some of these guys don't suffer (for example) a left AC bus failure on a 757/767 on a dark night.
I know that it is sometimes dangerous to generalize like I have above. There will no doubt be exceptions. I also find though that those that enjoy handling, and are good at it, inevitably are also better at operating the aircraft using the autopilot as well.
Remember though, there is a time and a place for hand flying - there are also times when it is appropriate to use the AP. It's simple common sense.
BS
Those that engage the AP as soon as poss after departure and leave it in until the last minute often lack the confidence to hand fly... and sometimes for good reason! If they did hand fly more then initially, safety margins would be eroded slightly because their s.a. is reduced whilst they struggle with some sort of instrument scan. The passengers would probably suffer an uncomfortable ride while all this is going on.. so it is quite understandable why some pilots argue that the AP is safer. They probably just about struggle through their proficiency checks so who cares?
Well, I care actually. I just hope that some of these guys don't suffer (for example) a left AC bus failure on a 757/767 on a dark night.
I know that it is sometimes dangerous to generalize like I have above. There will no doubt be exceptions. I also find though that those that enjoy handling, and are good at it, inevitably are also better at operating the aircraft using the autopilot as well.
Remember though, there is a time and a place for hand flying - there are also times when it is appropriate to use the AP. It's simple common sense.
BS
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Cyprus
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SYS Design
Federal Aviation Administration
Human Factors Team
Report on:
The Interfaces Between Flightcrews
and
Modern Flight Deck Systems
June 18, 1996
•Regulatory standards. Current standards for type certification and operations have not
kept pace with changes in technology and increased knowledge about human
performance. For example, flightcrew workload is the major human performance consideration in existing Part 25 regulations; other factors should be evaluated as well, including the potential for designs to induce human error and reduce flightcrew situation awareness.
It is anold one but Good report. Some one missed it .... The sound of the 60s was prefered. Now dressed with new procedures....and meaningful - "SET"
Human Factors Team
Report on:
The Interfaces Between Flightcrews
and
Modern Flight Deck Systems
June 18, 1996
•Regulatory standards. Current standards for type certification and operations have not
kept pace with changes in technology and increased knowledge about human
performance. For example, flightcrew workload is the major human performance consideration in existing Part 25 regulations; other factors should be evaluated as well, including the potential for designs to induce human error and reduce flightcrew situation awareness.
It is anold one but Good report. Some one missed it .... The sound of the 60s was prefered. Now dressed with new procedures....and meaningful - "SET"
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Surrey (actually)
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another point missed is that manual flying is good (at times) for the non-handler too. It forces them to monitor much more closely, and obviously ups their workload too. This can only be a good thing in the long run, subject to weather, airspace etc.
So whenever I get a theatrical sigh from the other seat ("if you must"), I just chuckle to myself, and think, "Yep, you can earn your money today, you idle ......!"
The reason a lot of people don't handfly, is laziness, leading to lack of confidence, leading to comments such as, "the automatics are there to be used", SOP excuses, "I'm always too tired". I've heard 'em all, and just wonder what old Ernest K Gann would think!
So whenever I get a theatrical sigh from the other seat ("if you must"), I just chuckle to myself, and think, "Yep, you can earn your money today, you idle ......!"
The reason a lot of people don't handfly, is laziness, leading to lack of confidence, leading to comments such as, "the automatics are there to be used", SOP excuses, "I'm always too tired". I've heard 'em all, and just wonder what old Ernest K Gann would think!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Snowland
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having recently come online after training on my first jet a/c I thought I'd give you my two cents
I have always been encouraged to handfly when it is suitable and I find it amazing how rapidly you imporve your ability to scan to include everything you need and after a while I found that I could even enjoy the sceneries out of a nice greek island.
Regarding previous notes on increased workload I must say that in my opinion that's compensated by the increased awareness and less trusting and assuming. Of course there are departures where it is NOT suitable to handfly but those are probably challanging enought that there is no risk of being complacient. If the departure is easy and workload expected to be low.....increase the workload by turning of some aids, it keeps you sharper and prevents compacency.
But maybe equally important, it's fun fun fun!
I have always been encouraged to handfly when it is suitable and I find it amazing how rapidly you imporve your ability to scan to include everything you need and after a while I found that I could even enjoy the sceneries out of a nice greek island.
Regarding previous notes on increased workload I must say that in my opinion that's compensated by the increased awareness and less trusting and assuming. Of course there are departures where it is NOT suitable to handfly but those are probably challanging enought that there is no risk of being complacient. If the departure is easy and workload expected to be low.....increase the workload by turning of some aids, it keeps you sharper and prevents compacency.
But maybe equally important, it's fun fun fun!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not get carried away here...
If hand-flying is 'fun' then it would have to be classed as 'serious fun' I guess. 'Serious fun': something inherently enjoyable which demands due care and consideration. Simply calling it 'fun' would go far in confirming the anti-hand flying group's basic suspicions about what is going on when the autopilot comes off.
As the multiple thousands of hours pile up the 'gee-whiz' factor fades, the wonder of how one can make an airplane obey your will with just a little pressure on the controls and all that sort of thing. Something of that remains but more important is simply maintaining this essential skill and not being afraid to use it when necessary.
As the multiple thousands of hours pile up the 'gee-whiz' factor fades, the wonder of how one can make an airplane obey your will with just a little pressure on the controls and all that sort of thing. Something of that remains but more important is simply maintaining this essential skill and not being afraid to use it when necessary.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tea green International
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Repremanded for permitting hand flying
Yesterday was a bad day...I have been nurturing a good Co-Pilot, on a very automated aircraft.....empty sectors, I encourage hand flying...I made a big mistake..I told my fleet captain....he went ape....how dare I encourage hand flying....there is no benefit in this...the aircraft is fully automated, and I should encourage his learning of the automation.....B0ll0cks....If you had seen the co pilots face, after a hand flown approach into Nice, and a no AT take off.......As a previous poster stated it improves my skills as well.....
Also, he has undergone Sim training, in both left and right seats, but as he is only a co-pilot, he is not permitted to handle empty legs from the left......"it is strictly NOT permitted". Can anyone confirm this is the JAA's view or just a company...I think that the pre JAA was more tolerant in this area....
So lets all revolt and remove the game boy from the loop and just fly the aeroplane.....
Bumz
Also, he has undergone Sim training, in both left and right seats, but as he is only a co-pilot, he is not permitted to handle empty legs from the left......"it is strictly NOT permitted". Can anyone confirm this is the JAA's view or just a company...I think that the pre JAA was more tolerant in this area....
So lets all revolt and remove the game boy from the loop and just fly the aeroplane.....
Bumz
Bumz Rush-it looks like the manager has lost the big picture.
Flying can be fun?
The common impression, whether mostly true or not, that pilots tend to enjoy their work under the right circumstances, contributes to resentment among many laymen and upper management.
Many of them, not to mention the common perception that automation can make the job easier (as they disregard, or are simply ignorant of the stressful, intense training and learning curve), feel that good pay is not justified, when there can be some enjoyment.
Many of these same types might often pay lots of money to watch (highly trained) professional athletes throw balls into a net, and seem not to complain about the prices.
They can manage costs (forget actual leadership at some US airlines), or damage an airline and leave with a quite lucrative bonus. A CEO can receive hundreds of thousand$ each month-even after he leaves! Salve lucrum! Cave aviator.
Flying can be fun?
The common impression, whether mostly true or not, that pilots tend to enjoy their work under the right circumstances, contributes to resentment among many laymen and upper management.
Many of them, not to mention the common perception that automation can make the job easier (as they disregard, or are simply ignorant of the stressful, intense training and learning curve), feel that good pay is not justified, when there can be some enjoyment.
Many of these same types might often pay lots of money to watch (highly trained) professional athletes throw balls into a net, and seem not to complain about the prices.
They can manage costs (forget actual leadership at some US airlines), or damage an airline and leave with a quite lucrative bonus. A CEO can receive hundreds of thousand$ each month-even after he leaves! Salve lucrum! Cave aviator.
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ALL airline managements, right up to CEO level, should be current or former pilots. That's they way the RAF does it (it's VERY senior ranks have for a long time been open only to pilots and navigators) and it gives the advantage that when policy is formed, the people forming it have at least SOME idea of what they are talking about.
Any manager that discourages hand flying needs to be shot. Bumz-Rush, you need to tell this tosser to wind his neck in. At least in my organisation, if one of the minions disagrees with a decision, the grand fromage can turn round and say "look, sonny, I did three operational tours on Harriers, so shut the f**k up and get some time in" - not something your lot can fall back on, unfortunately. Somehow the line "look, sonny, I once did an extremely hostile H&S seminar at which I actualy had to shout, so wind your neck in" doesn't command the same level of respect.....
Such as......?
Think of yourself as a TRE / TRI monitoring the autopilot (a trainee / new F/O) - would a checker / trainer insist that a stude fly a procedure / exercise that they feel is too difficult for THEM to attempt? Bottom line here is, if you can't do it yourself, you have no business monitoring the autopilot doing it. Simple professionalism.
On my current type, there is virtually NO automation - the (obsolete at delivery, in 1967!) autopilot is a simple height / heading / track hold device. ALL procedues are flown manually. Why do we get away with it? because we practice it, we have no choice. If you practice it, you will become good at it. If you rely on the automatics all the time, you will be sh1te at it, because you don't have to think about it whilst performing another complex motor task. If you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, you have no business being a pilot. NO autopilot can fly an aircraft as well as a competent human can. PERIOD.
16B
Any manager that discourages hand flying needs to be shot. Bumz-Rush, you need to tell this tosser to wind his neck in. At least in my organisation, if one of the minions disagrees with a decision, the grand fromage can turn round and say "look, sonny, I did three operational tours on Harriers, so shut the f**k up and get some time in" - not something your lot can fall back on, unfortunately. Somehow the line "look, sonny, I once did an extremely hostile H&S seminar at which I actualy had to shout, so wind your neck in" doesn't command the same level of respect.....
Of course there are departures where it is NOT suitable to handfly
Think of yourself as a TRE / TRI monitoring the autopilot (a trainee / new F/O) - would a checker / trainer insist that a stude fly a procedure / exercise that they feel is too difficult for THEM to attempt? Bottom line here is, if you can't do it yourself, you have no business monitoring the autopilot doing it. Simple professionalism.
On my current type, there is virtually NO automation - the (obsolete at delivery, in 1967!) autopilot is a simple height / heading / track hold device. ALL procedues are flown manually. Why do we get away with it? because we practice it, we have no choice. If you practice it, you will become good at it. If you rely on the automatics all the time, you will be sh1te at it, because you don't have to think about it whilst performing another complex motor task. If you cannot walk and chew gum at the same time, you have no business being a pilot. NO autopilot can fly an aircraft as well as a competent human can. PERIOD.
16B
Last edited by 16 blades; 1st Sep 2005 at 05:48.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Tea green International
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wrong end of stick
I hope ALL departures are capable of being flown by hand.
I still find it worrying that the other guy, will not set the ADF to the OM, or the NAV backside to the GA, or similar. We have so much access to information that it is so easy to call a halt at overload. Remember the suggestion when EFIS first appeared, " if you dont like it turn all selctor switched to OFF", and fly the aircraft.
If not we are now on the slippery slope, of making a dead FMS/FGS a NO GO item.
What about the less fortunate brothers who only have round windows......not 14in LCD screens.....
Totall agree, Gum chewing should be part of the IR check ride...
I for one do this job because I like flying...and not playing with game boys.
16B you can be my wing man any time....Bumz
I still find it worrying that the other guy, will not set the ADF to the OM, or the NAV backside to the GA, or similar. We have so much access to information that it is so easy to call a halt at overload. Remember the suggestion when EFIS first appeared, " if you dont like it turn all selctor switched to OFF", and fly the aircraft.
If not we are now on the slippery slope, of making a dead FMS/FGS a NO GO item.
What about the less fortunate brothers who only have round windows......not 14in LCD screens.....
Totall agree, Gum chewing should be part of the IR check ride...
I for one do this job because I like flying...and not playing with game boys.
16B you can be my wing man any time....Bumz
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two sides to every question...
Even though I am firmly in the 'hand-flying' camp I can see the other side's point, within reason.
I did a few weeks' exchange with a UK regional airline once, about 35 hours flown between southern UK airports and Amsterdam and Paris CDG. All I was used to was Nigerian flying, with no SIDs or STARs at all. Well, we would get a few on a (very rare) ferry flight, but all I had left was theoretical knowledge. Suddenly it was all Compton 3B this and Brookmans Park that, when I was just, 'Say whut?' like some fellow who just rode into town on a wagonload of turnips.
To be able to insert the SID into the FMS and then just follow the cues in quick succession made a lot of sense. I didn't fancy my chances of maintaining SA in such a situation if I had to hand-fly such a dense procedure. A 'bust' of some very densely populated airspace was just a matter of being off by a thousand feet or a few degrees of heading.
And then going into Paris, say, the controller would suddenly switch from one STAR to another, when, again, the ability to input this change rapidly and accurately was critical.
It wasn't as if I could say, yeah, but look at how I can hand-fly! Who cares about automation? No, it is 'horses for courses' and I will be the first to admit I had something to learn there. Well, I learned it! And, on the other hand, one of the ex-RAF guys also enjoyed watching me do a short landing one day. His idea and I guess he just wanted to see if a 'bush pilot' could really get to grips with this (new to me) large aircraft. Call it 'mutual respect' if you like, or 'tolerance'. It is something like that I am looking for in this discussion, and I think it has been arrived at.
Something just touched upon, the mindset of senior management, is part of this, I feel. To a certain sort of senior manager it is as though we are being overpaid just to push a set of buttons. Something like putting a coin in a vending machine and getting a cold can of Coca-Cola, it is 'something anyone could do.' So why have these expensive, whining, troublesome and overpaid pilots anyway? Dumb the job down to a certain level that consists of passing a canned simulator check every six months and life will be much simpler. It is not as though you need someone who can get out there at midnight with a cotton bedsheet, a gallon of 'dope' and a lantern to repair a hole in the fabric fuselage so that the night mail to Patagonia can go on time.
I did a few weeks' exchange with a UK regional airline once, about 35 hours flown between southern UK airports and Amsterdam and Paris CDG. All I was used to was Nigerian flying, with no SIDs or STARs at all. Well, we would get a few on a (very rare) ferry flight, but all I had left was theoretical knowledge. Suddenly it was all Compton 3B this and Brookmans Park that, when I was just, 'Say whut?' like some fellow who just rode into town on a wagonload of turnips.
To be able to insert the SID into the FMS and then just follow the cues in quick succession made a lot of sense. I didn't fancy my chances of maintaining SA in such a situation if I had to hand-fly such a dense procedure. A 'bust' of some very densely populated airspace was just a matter of being off by a thousand feet or a few degrees of heading.
And then going into Paris, say, the controller would suddenly switch from one STAR to another, when, again, the ability to input this change rapidly and accurately was critical.
It wasn't as if I could say, yeah, but look at how I can hand-fly! Who cares about automation? No, it is 'horses for courses' and I will be the first to admit I had something to learn there. Well, I learned it! And, on the other hand, one of the ex-RAF guys also enjoyed watching me do a short landing one day. His idea and I guess he just wanted to see if a 'bush pilot' could really get to grips with this (new to me) large aircraft. Call it 'mutual respect' if you like, or 'tolerance'. It is something like that I am looking for in this discussion, and I think it has been arrived at.
Something just touched upon, the mindset of senior management, is part of this, I feel. To a certain sort of senior manager it is as though we are being overpaid just to push a set of buttons. Something like putting a coin in a vending machine and getting a cold can of Coca-Cola, it is 'something anyone could do.' So why have these expensive, whining, troublesome and overpaid pilots anyway? Dumb the job down to a certain level that consists of passing a canned simulator check every six months and life will be much simpler. It is not as though you need someone who can get out there at midnight with a cotton bedsheet, a gallon of 'dope' and a lantern to repair a hole in the fabric fuselage so that the night mail to Patagonia can go on time.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canberra Australia
Posts: 1,300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation Safety
Airline Pilot Training and Hands On Experience
The current (2001) emphasis on aviation safety presents the opportunity to raise an aspect of safety which has been suppressed for far too long.
Having spent a lifetime in flight testing aircraft and aircrews I have observed the gradual transistion of the training of pilots from hands on the actual aircraft to the almost total use of simulators.
The paucity of experience and abilities of pilots flying the real aircraft in abnormal conditions is now emerging with increasing frequency and can only get worse until some authority without vested interests calls a halt. The whole merry-go-round can be attributed to cost cutting and competition which have been permitted by the regulatory authorities around the world. The situation remains under reasonable control in the military because of a different emphasis on the costs involved.
You may recall the time when Qantas conducted its pilot training on the early 747 aircraft at Avalon near Geelong in Victoria. This training faded away as better simulators emerged. Now most airline pilots are certified on type with simulation. This has become satisfactory for the regular, no problem flying that is the norm for the average airline pilot.
BUT any airline simulator instructor, if approached OFF the record, will tell you about the shortcomings of the present system which the regulatory authorities have been pressured into approving.
Look at how this has happened.
Whenever a simulator manufacturer developed yet another simulator with better bells and whisles airline accountants and management saw the opportunity to cut further the enormous costs of hands on pilot training. Any pilot objections were stifled and useless once the new simulator was installed and pressed into service.
Regulatory authorities could only reluctantly give acqiescence to the gradual loss of hands on training with many of the participants having themselves come from the simulated methods of training.
Any airline not electing to join the rat race of cost cutting would be left behind in the inevitable rush of doing so to retain or enhance competetiveness.
Now we have a generation of pilots who secretly know of their lack of skill in handling most unusual situations or who have convinced themselves that they have these inadequately tested abilities with the real aircraft.
This has been a worlwide evolutionary process and the whole thing has gone too far. Someone very powerful needs to call a halt and get things back into balance.
The present incumbents of the airlines and the regulatory authorities are too steeped in their own vested interests to acknowledge the problem in the hope that it may go away. They will be reluctant to discuss the problem as few will wish to draw the line between cost effectiveness and safety concerning pilot training and their adequate skills. And just listen to the screams of the simulator manufacturers.
Apply the same thoughts to that obscure line drawn between adequate car driving skills and public safety with motor vehicle operation. Somewhere there has to be an acceptable balance.
Written April 2001 and the situation continues to deteriorate.
Airline Pilot Training and Hands On Experience
The current (2001) emphasis on aviation safety presents the opportunity to raise an aspect of safety which has been suppressed for far too long.
Having spent a lifetime in flight testing aircraft and aircrews I have observed the gradual transistion of the training of pilots from hands on the actual aircraft to the almost total use of simulators.
The paucity of experience and abilities of pilots flying the real aircraft in abnormal conditions is now emerging with increasing frequency and can only get worse until some authority without vested interests calls a halt. The whole merry-go-round can be attributed to cost cutting and competition which have been permitted by the regulatory authorities around the world. The situation remains under reasonable control in the military because of a different emphasis on the costs involved.
You may recall the time when Qantas conducted its pilot training on the early 747 aircraft at Avalon near Geelong in Victoria. This training faded away as better simulators emerged. Now most airline pilots are certified on type with simulation. This has become satisfactory for the regular, no problem flying that is the norm for the average airline pilot.
BUT any airline simulator instructor, if approached OFF the record, will tell you about the shortcomings of the present system which the regulatory authorities have been pressured into approving.
Look at how this has happened.
Whenever a simulator manufacturer developed yet another simulator with better bells and whisles airline accountants and management saw the opportunity to cut further the enormous costs of hands on pilot training. Any pilot objections were stifled and useless once the new simulator was installed and pressed into service.
Regulatory authorities could only reluctantly give acqiescence to the gradual loss of hands on training with many of the participants having themselves come from the simulated methods of training.
Any airline not electing to join the rat race of cost cutting would be left behind in the inevitable rush of doing so to retain or enhance competetiveness.
Now we have a generation of pilots who secretly know of their lack of skill in handling most unusual situations or who have convinced themselves that they have these inadequately tested abilities with the real aircraft.
This has been a worlwide evolutionary process and the whole thing has gone too far. Someone very powerful needs to call a halt and get things back into balance.
The present incumbents of the airlines and the regulatory authorities are too steeped in their own vested interests to acknowledge the problem in the hope that it may go away. They will be reluctant to discuss the problem as few will wish to draw the line between cost effectiveness and safety concerning pilot training and their adequate skills. And just listen to the screams of the simulator manufacturers.
Apply the same thoughts to that obscure line drawn between adequate car driving skills and public safety with motor vehicle operation. Somewhere there has to be an acceptable balance.
Written April 2001 and the situation continues to deteriorate.