A late-ish stabilisation
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Age: 48
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You Are Welcome To Iceland Any Time My Friend!
No Autoland Capability When We Have 45g65 And Sn + 2000m Ovc008.
You Are Damm Right Thatīs Fun And A Real Pleasure Too Man!!
As A Good Practise Mnl Flt Is Encouraged By Mr. Boeing(in Low Density Airports Of Course)
No Autoland Capability When We Have 45g65 And Sn + 2000m Ovc008.
You Are Damm Right Thatīs Fun And A Real Pleasure Too Man!!
As A Good Practise Mnl Flt Is Encouraged By Mr. Boeing(in Low Density Airports Of Course)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The company I work for has us doing during all OPC/LPC's one-engine raw-data ILS'es until minima with normally 15-30kts crosswind. Left and right seat. Our entry check includes step turns, stalls etc.
This is flying B737F's for an airline in the Icelandair-Group...,
Most normal approaches are flown raw-data too, at least among Belgians.
Use automatics when needed and fly the aircraft when possible. Not the other way around.
This is flying B737F's for an airline in the Icelandair-Group...,
Most normal approaches are flown raw-data too, at least among Belgians.
Use automatics when needed and fly the aircraft when possible. Not the other way around.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: very close to STN!!
Posts: 523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's a captain's responsibility!
we should MAKE the first officers handfly--within reason. and take away the flight directors and closer in (abeam or base) take away their map.
i watch the early part of the flight and see if there is the basic potential-- and within the company rules, (not into LON TMA, wx) i will often reach up and turn off the auto pilot and tell the first officer that is has failed.
after their initial shock, they always thank me when it is finished. i know that sense of actually having done something.
and it is a handfull even in good weather if you don't do it often.
i remember the 737-500 estonia that lost all his air data not long ago and was told they have the same air data boxes that our -800's use.
so we must take the initiative and give them the opportunity/challenge.
if that makes me a rebel and a dinosaur, so be it.
i watch the early part of the flight and see if there is the basic potential-- and within the company rules, (not into LON TMA, wx) i will often reach up and turn off the auto pilot and tell the first officer that is has failed.
after their initial shock, they always thank me when it is finished. i know that sense of actually having done something.
and it is a handfull even in good weather if you don't do it often.
i remember the 737-500 estonia that lost all his air data not long ago and was told they have the same air data boxes that our -800's use.
so we must take the initiative and give them the opportunity/challenge.
if that makes me a rebel and a dinosaur, so be it.
Manual flying with everything switched off should be actively encouraged & I do so with all my f/os.
However handflying is not the point of the thread. Whether you are the ace of the base of the lowest common denominator, turning finals at 100ft is unprofessional.
As an aside imho one thing more dangerous than lack of manual flying skill, is a lack of skill in using the automation.
However handflying is not the point of the thread. Whether you are the ace of the base of the lowest common denominator, turning finals at 100ft is unprofessional.
As an aside imho one thing more dangerous than lack of manual flying skill, is a lack of skill in using the automation.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: MADRID
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddnīt realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddnīt realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi guys,
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddnīt realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.
The other day I saw a british registered A-320 with a crybaby on the right seat, he was so busy looking inside that he diddnīt realize it was a sunny day outside, poor thing.
Perhaps the other thread has you a little bit aggitated at those british copilots, huh?
Like these guys have been saying, I have to add that I and many, many of my colleagues have been mystified for a number of years now that the most difficult thing for the newly minted copilot is a visual approach! This is a simulator observation as well as on line. The by the numbers training worked wonderfully and they've got the whole routine down well (as in robotic and rote) for the instrument approach procedure but it is one hell of a good laugh to watch one of these organized SOP spouting, training program experts have no clue how to just look at a runway from a downwind leg and actually fly it to the runway! It says great things about the training but oh so clearly points out where some basic emphasis is needed and where the experience becomes priceless.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Northampton
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OAT teach visual approaches from the downwind during the MCC/JOT course. Most airlines expect you to be able to fly raw data for the assessment for employment. All airlines I have flown for encourage you to develop hand flying skills, and test you in the sim by flying circling approaches etc. however in some third world airlines it only the automatics that stop them from killing all the passengers. This was a comment in Flight some years ago by a training captain from one such airline. I should add that the comment probably includes first world airlines these days.
Last edited by rogerg; 24th Dec 2007 at 10:42.
Jaxon, but the thing about visual approaches is that even that is done by numbers. Faro is a golden example. People program up FMGC and try to fly a visual through the automatics and map display. They then forget how close in they are and go-around because they are too fast. I wonder some times why the manufacturers bother putting windows in the flight deck!
People program up FMGC and try to fly a visual through the automatics and map display.
Apropos another thread, we do not permit night visuals in designated mountainous terrain for a good reason.
That said, a well-flown visual from a mile or two outside the marker, (4 to 6 miles back), when in the slot can save fuel and time but I agree with Jaxon - the ability to fly a visual approach simply by looking outside is a disappearing art. Disconnecting the a/p and a/t below 10 and hand-flying a visual is a good way to get everyone's close attention in the cockpit, first because many have never seen it done...
With elementary use (not reliant-use) of the map feature one can maintain situational awareness while employing the one-in-three rule for altitude and using the groundspeed-divided-by-2 method that yields the rate-of-descent to maintain for a rough 3-deg visual "g/s" all the way down, keeping in mind how much distance it takes to slow down and get configured. It's simple and everyone who's spent any time hand-flying (when appropriate), and not merely "managing" the airplane all the time knows this like the back of their hand but, along with the go-around maneuver, a visual approach can be one of the most cocked-up maneuvers seen, even in the data.
On a matter related to risk, I have heard it said that the go-around maneuver may not always be the preferred "out" to an approach that has become destabilized, (not necessarily referencing the Air France 358 TSB Report here). To me that's nonsense because the maneuver is (or ought to be) basic toolkit stuff, but the observation was made and deserved some thought about accidents related to the go-around maneuver. The context was, whether go-arounds ought to always be encouraged when an approach becomes destabilized. I couldn't really believe my ears but there it was.
One that comes to mind both in the go-around and then poorly-executed visual approach(es) was the Gulfair A320 accident at Bahrain in August, 2000. There have been several "mode-confusion" go-around accidents since then which may have had a vestibular disorientation component. Training issues emerge as well.
Perhaps this is for another thread, (admin?, & if there is indeed any interest in the question), but what sense is there that a go-around can approach the riskiness of continuing a highly unstable approach?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Miles, get a life you snitch. We all strive to be stabilised, otherwise (with my company anyway) it's a mandatory go-around. Get your own house in order and leave all the professionals to get on with the job without being snooped on by onlookers.
I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.
I speak as one who has done thousands of touch and gos in four-engined aeroplanes whilst training new pilots over 40 years until I retired last year.
I am still teaching this exercise in the simulator.
I speak as one who has done thousands of touch and gos in four-engined aeroplanes whilst training new pilots over 40 years until I retired last year.
I am still teaching this exercise in the simulator.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's easy when you've done thousands of them in the simulator and see them every week. When there's nowhere on your operating network where you can do a 1500 ft visual circuit, hence you only get to try them twice a year in the simulator, it's a different matter.
JW411;
Fully concur - it is such a basic tool in the kit for every pilot that it is indeed hard to believe.
But it has been trained out of the profession partly due to a misplaced infatuation with automation and it's capabilities. I have seen company responses where a visual gets badly messed up with the result that the operations people have clamped down on "doing visuals" rather than emphasizing fixing the issue in training. One can do visuals "by the numbers" in the sense that judging when to turn base is usually a 45" run plus some seconds added/subtracted for wind but the energy management of a heavy four-engine aircraft is the same as any machine when one understands the need for an effective scan, aircraft mass & energy and swept-wing aerodynamics and can use the wonderful amount of information at hand on both the Primary Flight Displays and Nav Displays, the absence all of which is the chief problem in disappearing skills.
Using automation well and appropriately is like hand-flying appropriately - it is a tool and there is a time, (most of the time, in my view) to use the designed systems to their full capacity. But when one is in a machine which ultimately may require manual intervention either in anger or "in fun", it had better be anticipated and competent. There are plenty of abnormal circumstances where, through various system faults, (speaking of Airbus here), a degraded autoflight system requires such skills - it's just part of the profession, even though it is reducing in importance as autoflight becomes more sophisticated.
I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.
But it has been trained out of the profession partly due to a misplaced infatuation with automation and it's capabilities. I have seen company responses where a visual gets badly messed up with the result that the operations people have clamped down on "doing visuals" rather than emphasizing fixing the issue in training. One can do visuals "by the numbers" in the sense that judging when to turn base is usually a 45" run plus some seconds added/subtracted for wind but the energy management of a heavy four-engine aircraft is the same as any machine when one understands the need for an effective scan, aircraft mass & energy and swept-wing aerodynamics and can use the wonderful amount of information at hand on both the Primary Flight Displays and Nav Displays, the absence all of which is the chief problem in disappearing skills.
Using automation well and appropriately is like hand-flying appropriately - it is a tool and there is a time, (most of the time, in my view) to use the designed systems to their full capacity. But when one is in a machine which ultimately may require manual intervention either in anger or "in fun", it had better be anticipated and competent. There are plenty of abnormal circumstances where, through various system faults, (speaking of Airbus here), a degraded autoflight system requires such skills - it's just part of the profession, even though it is reducing in importance as autoflight becomes more sophisticated.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sixandthreeland
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaxon, but the thing about visual approaches is that even that is done by numbers.... I wonder some times why the manufacturers bother putting windows in the flight deck!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying
stator vane:
Post #108, very good sense, thank you.
Any pilot should be capable of flying manually to and from the cruising level equal to the standard that the autopilot produces. During the climb or descent, without prior warning, put your hand over the HSI information and ask what exact heading was being flown. Good for a beer or two and it enforces the basic of Command Heading.
Tmb
Post #108, very good sense, thank you.
Any pilot should be capable of flying manually to and from the cruising level equal to the standard that the autopilot produces. During the climb or descent, without prior warning, put your hand over the HSI information and ask what exact heading was being flown. Good for a beer or two and it enforces the basic of Command Heading.
Tmb
I am simply incredulous that any so-called professional pilot should consider that doing a visual circuit in a large aeroplane is in any way difficult.
How DO you fly a "visual circuit" in a heavy jet in a (possibly uncooprative) busy ATC environment?
I don't count the sim - after all, it has to be flown by numbers (like a circling approach) unless you're in a 360deg vis. military jobbo. If, like most sensible airlines, you have stabilised approach criteria, then there are limits to what you can do when you "go visual" in terms of RoD, bank angle, height of final turn, etc. Not to mention the other traffic that is attempting to do the same thing onto the same runway - as it is with many operators now, I must keep TCAS on TA/RA unless a QRH item allows its inhibition.
Visual circuits are easy - until you take away the DME, reduce the vis., send you at the airport from a strange direction, keep you high/low/under speed control, put lots of conflicting traffic into the equation. Oh, not to mention being after 12hrs in the air too..
I am all for the practice and perpetuation of hand-flying skills but I will stand up and say that today, a (competent) visual circuit is one of the more demanding manoeuvres that you can fly in large aeroplane. And this is from a glider pilot with 3,000+ hrs without an engine, who has to get it right on every visual circuit as there is no go-around.
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: U.K.
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It must be a 411 skill. After a long night on the ocean. I try not to show my (considerable) handling skills,lest I screw up. The autopilot won't call me a wimp,will it? Or is the airbus more intelligent than I thought?
FullWings, Dash6;
The trick in justifying hand-flying is determining when it is appropriate and when automation is appropriate. A busy (eg, LAX, LHR, FRA, etc) terminal is no place to be hand-flying any transport, large or small, with the other pilot focussed on making the hdg/alt window changes as well as monitoring the a/c and doing ATC. ATC expectations are high accuracy and quick compliance so I would think that the margins are too narrow/small for altitude and heading error and heads-inside in such terminals.
A visual is demanding in relation to the other maneuvers required but, along with steep turns while climbing, descending and in level flight, all on raw instruments, it's part of the skill-set. After a long overseas is no time to be "demonstrating" one's hand-flying skills. Unless adrenaline has been added, they just aren't there and neither is the thinking required.
The sim absolutely does not count. Manipulating electrons and flying molecules are two entirely different endeavours even in a simulator with visual and CATIII certification. It can help with the basics but it's not the same.
All this said, there is no more fun than an L1011 and a Canarsie on the right side...
The trick in justifying hand-flying is determining when it is appropriate and when automation is appropriate. A busy (eg, LAX, LHR, FRA, etc) terminal is no place to be hand-flying any transport, large or small, with the other pilot focussed on making the hdg/alt window changes as well as monitoring the a/c and doing ATC. ATC expectations are high accuracy and quick compliance so I would think that the margins are too narrow/small for altitude and heading error and heads-inside in such terminals.
A visual is demanding in relation to the other maneuvers required but, along with steep turns while climbing, descending and in level flight, all on raw instruments, it's part of the skill-set. After a long overseas is no time to be "demonstrating" one's hand-flying skills. Unless adrenaline has been added, they just aren't there and neither is the thinking required.
The sim absolutely does not count. Manipulating electrons and flying molecules are two entirely different endeavours even in a simulator with visual and CATIII certification. It can help with the basics but it's not the same.
All this said, there is no more fun than an L1011 and a Canarsie on the right side...