A late-ish stabilisation
Miles, A4,
I would rather have the life of my kids in the hands of these stick and rudder guys than in the hands of guys who almost stall when autothrust/autothrottle are inop
I would rather have the life of my kids in the hands of these stick and rudder guys than in the hands of guys who almost stall when autothrust/autothrottle are inop
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont understand the point of this thread.
I dont subscribe to the urban myth of loosing flying skills. When you switch of the fd and ap and fly a scratchy circuit or departure Maybe just maybe they werent as sharp as you thought they were in the first place?
I fly stable approaches of all kinds except where the parameters are exempted or different. Samos, chambrey ils sink rate and Circling, skiathos etc.
Now I dont get many of these in a season but guess what my fyling skills are just fine at samos, my short field skills at skiathos and my 5* ils followed by a circle in terrain higher than the circling height in 3000m to a short airport with a lake at the end just fine.
Maybe thats because they were developed in an appropiate enviroment as a bush pilot before jets and not some snotty cadet straight out of school onto a jet and five years down the line we get threads like this. How many of you moaning on about skills acepted the jet job without a murmur. Well that included some conditions. Fly it as required. Not as you see fit.
I would suggest that those who hype on about loss of flying skills take a long look at themselves and a constant need to prove themselves as stick and rudder men.Exactly why we have fdm to watch the insecure guys proving something.
Oh and by the way when is the last time a boeing had a stick or you used the rudder outside the flare.
CRM the middle letter stand for resource. the automatics are a resource. Your ego and need to prove things to yourself or colleagues.Its not JUST about being nice to cabin crew
Grow up its not flight school.
I dont subscribe to the urban myth of loosing flying skills. When you switch of the fd and ap and fly a scratchy circuit or departure Maybe just maybe they werent as sharp as you thought they were in the first place?
I fly stable approaches of all kinds except where the parameters are exempted or different. Samos, chambrey ils sink rate and Circling, skiathos etc.
Now I dont get many of these in a season but guess what my fyling skills are just fine at samos, my short field skills at skiathos and my 5* ils followed by a circle in terrain higher than the circling height in 3000m to a short airport with a lake at the end just fine.
Maybe thats because they were developed in an appropiate enviroment as a bush pilot before jets and not some snotty cadet straight out of school onto a jet and five years down the line we get threads like this. How many of you moaning on about skills acepted the jet job without a murmur. Well that included some conditions. Fly it as required. Not as you see fit.
I would suggest that those who hype on about loss of flying skills take a long look at themselves and a constant need to prove themselves as stick and rudder men.Exactly why we have fdm to watch the insecure guys proving something.
Oh and by the way when is the last time a boeing had a stick or you used the rudder outside the flare.
CRM the middle letter stand for resource. the automatics are a resource. Your ego and need to prove things to yourself or colleagues.Its not JUST about being nice to cabin crew
Grow up its not flight school.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bushbolox,
Yes,generally you're correct.Automatics are a good resource and company SOP's are not to be wilfully ignored.
No two pilots are the same,although the Company may write the book as though we all are.Theres company limitations and then theres your own limitations.A pilot must know his own limitations.The Company tailor the book to the lowest common denominator.They might mandate a max crosswind of 10 knots on a contaminated runway,or even five.Many pilots have the ability to land with fifteen or twenty.Does this mean they should?Many pilots can execute a perfectly safe landing having bust all the company's VMC stabilization criteria.Does it mean they should?
How much leeway does an airline pilot have?Those who say none are talking on the record.Officially,there's very little leeway,other than in an emergency.Unofficially,its a different matter.The truth of the matter is while the CP wants his rules adhered to,he also wants his Captains to exercise their judgement and discretion when the situation warrrants or allows such discretion..I would argue that the VMC(not the IMC) stabilization criteria is a good example.However,if you do exercise your discretion and screw it up,he'll cross you off his xmas card list,so be warned.Its a fine line and judging where the line is drawn is a real art.
Yes,generally you're correct.Automatics are a good resource and company SOP's are not to be wilfully ignored.
No two pilots are the same,although the Company may write the book as though we all are.Theres company limitations and then theres your own limitations.A pilot must know his own limitations.The Company tailor the book to the lowest common denominator.They might mandate a max crosswind of 10 knots on a contaminated runway,or even five.Many pilots have the ability to land with fifteen or twenty.Does this mean they should?Many pilots can execute a perfectly safe landing having bust all the company's VMC stabilization criteria.Does it mean they should?
How much leeway does an airline pilot have?Those who say none are talking on the record.Officially,there's very little leeway,other than in an emergency.Unofficially,its a different matter.The truth of the matter is while the CP wants his rules adhered to,he also wants his Captains to exercise their judgement and discretion when the situation warrrants or allows such discretion..I would argue that the VMC(not the IMC) stabilization criteria is a good example.However,if you do exercise your discretion and screw it up,he'll cross you off his xmas card list,so be warned.Its a fine line and judging where the line is drawn is a real art.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dont subscribe to the urban myth of loosing flying skills.
How many hard/long landing incidents would it take to change your mind? I can show you five on the front page of Rumour and News currently.....
Centaurus;
Yes, I hear that from F/O's I used to fly with - it always bothered me because I could tell people were losing basic skills. FWIW, I fully agree with Huck, above, because I know that these are outcomes of reduced skill levels.
Early on, I chose to be one of the other kind of skippers who insisted on hand-flying every chance I got, both on the 320 series and 340 series a/c and that my F/O's do the same when comfortable, and that I would be happy to do the a/p settings. I insisted on (and taught) use of manual thrust when appropriate, so the autothrust system was understood, (for some reason, there is a great fear of both disconnecting the a/t and actually how to do it without causing a mess or a runaway airplane - I've seen it). The goal was to teach relationships between the autothrust, flight director, autoflight and FMGC systems because it is impossible to learn from the AOM and sim time is difficult to come by.
The barebones training and abnormals-driven sim sessions never catered to how to fly the airplane and instead focussed on ECAM discipline, reading checklists, getting the more complex abnormals "comfortable", (EMER Elect Config, two hydraulic system failure, slat-flap jams, CATIII's etc). Manual thrust and hand flying especially with the f/d's off and raw ILS data was never taught but it was sometimes tested as were steep turns and stall recoveries. I hand-flew the 320 and 340 every leg I had until the company quietly but unmistakably indicated that hand-flying was only to be "encouraged", (meaning if anything happened, you were on the carpet) under very specific conditions which would be extremely benign to some posters here who have expressed opinions and who who see, like I do, the exceptional value of staying in touch with the airplane as opposed to "managing" the airplane through secondary "intellectual vice artistic" modes, (another thread...). The standard used when teaching was, if the candidate could, in all flight regimes, move from fully automated flight to fully manual flight and back again without the passengers "knowing", I felt there was sufficient understanding of the Airbus autoflight system to be safe. I have seen enough outcomes of misunderstanding autoflight regimes that I consider manual flight essential and not merely something to be practised when there isn't a bird in a clear-blue sky. This issue was raised almost two decades ago and still has not been addressed by the airlines nor by the regulator. A thorough balance between the two - automation & actual flying an airplane, is key, using both regimes but right now the balance is way too far towards automation and as such is becoming a self-fulfilling "prophecy". Automation can subtlely create a "veil" between crew and aircraft as, especially in the Airbus, the feedback loops (speed and sound, pressure on the stick, a/c speed and trim), are incomplete.
Don't mistake these expressions as eschewing automation and it's contributions to flight safety. Undoubtedly automation is safer, used appropriately and with comprehension. I fully embrace automatic flight - but, like the "MCPL panacea" that is fast becoming the new fad with airline managements, IATA and even ICAO, managements who do not fly regularly and bean-counters who figure automation can reduce costs and Operations departments who loath manual flight because of the "higher fuel costs", (heard it, been told), need to reassess what a pilot actually does and who can now rightly call themselves an aviator and who cannot.
Or those stalwarts with four stripes who practically have a fit if you suggest turning off the flight director in sunny CAVOK..
Early on, I chose to be one of the other kind of skippers who insisted on hand-flying every chance I got, both on the 320 series and 340 series a/c and that my F/O's do the same when comfortable, and that I would be happy to do the a/p settings. I insisted on (and taught) use of manual thrust when appropriate, so the autothrust system was understood, (for some reason, there is a great fear of both disconnecting the a/t and actually how to do it without causing a mess or a runaway airplane - I've seen it). The goal was to teach relationships between the autothrust, flight director, autoflight and FMGC systems because it is impossible to learn from the AOM and sim time is difficult to come by.
The barebones training and abnormals-driven sim sessions never catered to how to fly the airplane and instead focussed on ECAM discipline, reading checklists, getting the more complex abnormals "comfortable", (EMER Elect Config, two hydraulic system failure, slat-flap jams, CATIII's etc). Manual thrust and hand flying especially with the f/d's off and raw ILS data was never taught but it was sometimes tested as were steep turns and stall recoveries. I hand-flew the 320 and 340 every leg I had until the company quietly but unmistakably indicated that hand-flying was only to be "encouraged", (meaning if anything happened, you were on the carpet) under very specific conditions which would be extremely benign to some posters here who have expressed opinions and who who see, like I do, the exceptional value of staying in touch with the airplane as opposed to "managing" the airplane through secondary "intellectual vice artistic" modes, (another thread...). The standard used when teaching was, if the candidate could, in all flight regimes, move from fully automated flight to fully manual flight and back again without the passengers "knowing", I felt there was sufficient understanding of the Airbus autoflight system to be safe. I have seen enough outcomes of misunderstanding autoflight regimes that I consider manual flight essential and not merely something to be practised when there isn't a bird in a clear-blue sky. This issue was raised almost two decades ago and still has not been addressed by the airlines nor by the regulator. A thorough balance between the two - automation & actual flying an airplane, is key, using both regimes but right now the balance is way too far towards automation and as such is becoming a self-fulfilling "prophecy". Automation can subtlely create a "veil" between crew and aircraft as, especially in the Airbus, the feedback loops (speed and sound, pressure on the stick, a/c speed and trim), are incomplete.
Don't mistake these expressions as eschewing automation and it's contributions to flight safety. Undoubtedly automation is safer, used appropriately and with comprehension. I fully embrace automatic flight - but, like the "MCPL panacea" that is fast becoming the new fad with airline managements, IATA and even ICAO, managements who do not fly regularly and bean-counters who figure automation can reduce costs and Operations departments who loath manual flight because of the "higher fuel costs", (heard it, been told), need to reassess what a pilot actually does and who can now rightly call themselves an aviator and who cannot.
Last edited by PJ2; 21st Dec 2007 at 21:43.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: lgw
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huck , Ill re emphasise my point. The incidents you mention happen in non automated and automated regimes.The flying skills require to fly the last 500 feet are not that hard.
They are the result of poor flying skills period. They dont deterioate. THAT is the marker of a true aviator. The ability to fly not to pay for a career.
There are many doctors but not many surgeons
They are the result of poor flying skills period. They dont deterioate. THAT is the marker of a true aviator. The ability to fly not to pay for a career.
There are many doctors but not many surgeons
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to have been sidelined into the 'all pilots are c*** unless they did bush flying' debate. Well if you wish to blow sunshine up your own ass then please be my guest. I fly with guys who've done bush flying, instructing, night mail runs, fast jets, low level multi engine stuff and world renowned air racing, and apart from the last category I really can't tell much difference between them, either doing manual flying or non-normals in the sim. The only discriminator is how often they practice manual flying.
I think comments like that reveal your true agenda.
THAT is the marker of a true aviator. The ability to fly not to pay for a career.
Last edited by Hand Solo; 22nd Dec 2007 at 01:07.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hand Solo . . .
"...Thats fine, you can do that in aircraft up to BAe146. Unfortunately you can't do that sort of flying into busy controlled airports in a big jet. There's too much traffic and the aircraft isn't manouvreable enough. Try turning final at 400 ft in a 747 and you'd better have it right first time because there's no time to correct if you haven't."
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well thanks for the post Glueball but Kai Tak has been closed for quite some time now and for most crews it required specific simulator training so you can hardly claim it relied on pure airmanship skills. Never been to Quito and I'm sure the extreme density altitude conditions make it an almost uniquely challenging approach, but how many airlines will send a crew in there without either simulator training or special crew briefing? You are pulling examples from the very extremes of airline flying and trying to apply them across the spectrum.
I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position. Some will be average, some will be above average, some below, but all will be qualified. The idea that those who've done the bush flying will automatically be above average is hooey, I've seen them fly and they are no better or worse as a group than people from any other background. In my experience once anybody has been removed from their previous job by 5 years all bets are off. The flying skill from the previous job has gone and all that remains is a sentimental attachment to skills they once had, and usually an egotistical desire to profess how good they are to others.
I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position. Some will be average, some will be above average, some below, but all will be qualified. The idea that those who've done the bush flying will automatically be above average is hooey, I've seen them fly and they are no better or worse as a group than people from any other background. In my experience once anybody has been removed from their previous job by 5 years all bets are off. The flying skill from the previous job has gone and all that remains is a sentimental attachment to skills they once had, and usually an egotistical desire to profess how good they are to others.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Well thanks for the post Glueball but Kai Tak has been closed for quite some time now and for most crews it required specific simulator training so you can hardly claim it relied on pure airmanship skills.
Wow, there's a bit of nonsense that slipped out - airmanship skills by definition resulted from training. Practicing is part of training, and doing is also practicing... get the picture? Skills are learned.
"I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position.
You missed the point, the suggestion was that being a "true aviator" comes with experience and cannot be purchased. Meeting the minimum standards for certification is one thing, but it does not say much about experience, does it? The point is obvious as that is precisely why command has a minimum experience requirement in addition to simply passing the tests.
Wow, there's a bit of nonsense that slipped out - airmanship skills by definition resulted from training. Practicing is part of training, and doing is also practicing... get the picture? Skills are learned.
"I don't buy Jaxons/Bushbolox idea that those who have 'paid' for their career are somehow worse. Everybody in their appropriate seat of a UK airliner has passed the appropriate tests and are thus qualified for their position.
You missed the point, the suggestion was that being a "true aviator" comes with experience and cannot be purchased. Meeting the minimum standards for certification is one thing, but it does not say much about experience, does it? The point is obvious as that is precisely why command has a minimum experience requirement in addition to simply passing the tests.
Last edited by Jaxon; 22nd Dec 2007 at 07:37.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In my experience once anybody has been removed from their previous job by 5 years all bets are off. The flying skill from the previous job has gone and all that remains is a sentimental attachment to skills they once had, and usually an egotistical desire to profess how good they are to others."
Your theory is very easily disproved. I used to ride a unicycle quite a bit in my younger days. How much would you like to wager that I still can?
If you go visit the retirement home and drag two 70 year old farts down to the airport and make them each fly a circuit in a 737 I'll bet the one who used to do it for a living will return a useable airframe.
Your theory is very easily disproved. I used to ride a unicycle quite a bit in my younger days. How much would you like to wager that I still can?
If you go visit the retirement home and drag two 70 year old farts down to the airport and make them each fly a circuit in a 737 I'll bet the one who used to do it for a living will return a useable airframe.
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: here
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not.The aircraft will fly itself better than we can anway.Of more relevance is the ability to manage resources-for instance fuel/people/systems, particularly as aircraft become larger and commercial pressures higher.
Interestingly the management side of the pilot job is seldom discussed or alluded to.
Interestingly the management side of the pilot job is seldom discussed or alluded to.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not.
Hmmm. lets see, Azores A330, AC B767, LH A320...come to mind.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Arguably the ability to hand fly is largely irrelevant to the modern airline pilot,like it or not."
I'd say its more accurate to say that the ability to hand fly is becoming more and more degraded as more reliance on automation is accepted. Its only accepted because the automation is 'good enough' to help produce acceptable fatality statistics. Its not that the skill is not needed, its that the number of deaths attributed to that degraded skill level is acceptable thanks to all the modern gadgets.
Management skills are no more or less necessary in the modern cockpit, they are just all thats left to do and now include a longer and rather mindless bit of button pushing.
I'd say its more accurate to say that the ability to hand fly is becoming more and more degraded as more reliance on automation is accepted. Its only accepted because the automation is 'good enough' to help produce acceptable fatality statistics. Its not that the skill is not needed, its that the number of deaths attributed to that degraded skill level is acceptable thanks to all the modern gadgets.
Management skills are no more or less necessary in the modern cockpit, they are just all thats left to do and now include a longer and rather mindless bit of button pushing.
411a,
Those incidents were arguably caused by mismanagement issues. Still good examples of very good handling skills. There is no reason why people should not practice those skills regularly. I fear the common reason is a lack of confidence in the LHS, which restricts not just themselves but the development of the f/o as well.
Back to the thread topic, turning final at 100 ft in a passenger jet airliner is not on. I have seen 3 unstable incidents this year from the same national carrier. There was no skill involved in these approaches which is backed up by the large control inputs near to the ground.
Those incidents were arguably caused by mismanagement issues. Still good examples of very good handling skills. There is no reason why people should not practice those skills regularly. I fear the common reason is a lack of confidence in the LHS, which restricts not just themselves but the development of the f/o as well.
Back to the thread topic, turning final at 100 ft in a passenger jet airliner is not on. I have seen 3 unstable incidents this year from the same national carrier. There was no skill involved in these approaches which is backed up by the large control inputs near to the ground.
