Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Middle East
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an endless circular argument but fascinating nonetheless.
It comes down to an equation of risk vs reward:
Is the risk of operating with reduced automation more than offset by the benefit of maintaining a high standard of instrument flying skills?
I like poling these things around as much as anyone but I have come to the conclusion that no, with the new generation of aircraft its not justified.
My experience is that a basic level of manual flying ability is retained and available in the highly unlikely freak occurrence of loss of all autopilots, after all, every take-off and most landings are still flown manually.
With manual flying and visual apps I think you either have do it alot, as I did doing domestic flying or military, or you pretty much avoid it as on long haul you are never going to retain the level of proficiency to make it as safe as using the automation.
It comes down to an equation of risk vs reward:
Is the risk of operating with reduced automation more than offset by the benefit of maintaining a high standard of instrument flying skills?
I like poling these things around as much as anyone but I have come to the conclusion that no, with the new generation of aircraft its not justified.
My experience is that a basic level of manual flying ability is retained and available in the highly unlikely freak occurrence of loss of all autopilots, after all, every take-off and most landings are still flown manually.
With manual flying and visual apps I think you either have do it alot, as I did doing domestic flying or military, or you pretty much avoid it as on long haul you are never going to retain the level of proficiency to make it as safe as using the automation.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Age: 60
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem is that we don't even recognise the benefits of traditional flying skills anymore. It is not optional to SOP, we need both.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box, but you'll neeg good judgement to do so. Passing on the tradiotional skills to supplement the SOPs is what I mean. We don't do it anymore. We just check that the boy obeys. And he us.
Flying has almost become a procedure that comes out of a committee. Or at least the people in the committees tend to think so.
When something goes wrong the committees will reconvene and come up with more SOP. Unless the guys in the cockpit had enough skill to survive, they'll not be heard in this process.
Hudson case is to the point here. Captain Sullenberger and F/O Skiles were both experienced pilots from a traditional 'school of piloting', and therefore able to make their own quick assesment of the situation. Sioux City DC10 was much of the same, experience and skill replacing what the booklets couldn't tell you. We all benefit from the outcome in the form of SOPs and better design. But also inspiration, I guess.
Then the new SOP will replace the old one - the one that was seen as the only possible version just a while ago. Until a new committee finds reason to change it. In the meantime it is up to the individual crew to win the day, every day - as a routine.
I'll admit that it is nice to know what the guy sitting next to you is doing and that you all speak the same language (I don't mean ICAO 6), but communication was always the key to a happy crew. It was definitely part of that passing-it-on.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box, but you'll neeg good judgement to do so. Passing on the tradiotional skills to supplement the SOPs is what I mean. We don't do it anymore. We just check that the boy obeys. And he us.
Flying has almost become a procedure that comes out of a committee. Or at least the people in the committees tend to think so.
When something goes wrong the committees will reconvene and come up with more SOP. Unless the guys in the cockpit had enough skill to survive, they'll not be heard in this process.
Hudson case is to the point here. Captain Sullenberger and F/O Skiles were both experienced pilots from a traditional 'school of piloting', and therefore able to make their own quick assesment of the situation. Sioux City DC10 was much of the same, experience and skill replacing what the booklets couldn't tell you. We all benefit from the outcome in the form of SOPs and better design. But also inspiration, I guess.
Then the new SOP will replace the old one - the one that was seen as the only possible version just a while ago. Until a new committee finds reason to change it. In the meantime it is up to the individual crew to win the day, every day - as a routine.
I'll admit that it is nice to know what the guy sitting next to you is doing and that you all speak the same language (I don't mean ICAO 6), but communication was always the key to a happy crew. It was definitely part of that passing-it-on.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good points all, but I still ask the question; are we not the final insurance policy when things go wrong? It may not be autopilots that fail, but rather a subsidury system that does not allow their use. Is it not the case that the pax should expect us to be able to cope with situations where flying skills are required. When the manure hits the air conditioning should we not be able to cope? Smoke filled cockpit etc, or jammed controls. Is that not what they pay for in some part of their ticket?
Should we not be able to land an a/c with 2 engines where the only problem was a blocked static vent? It was a flying a/c with all flying controls functional and all engines. Indeed, after that B757 accident, how many of us were allowed to try it in the sim and learn for someone elses misfortune? Was there not a case recently where there was a pitot problem giving rise to spurious indictaions. I can't remember if they got airborne or aborted; but things can go wrong aloft in any case. We don't all fly brand new shiny NG a/c.
Should we not be able to land an a/c with 2 engines where the only problem was a blocked static vent? It was a flying a/c with all flying controls functional and all engines. Indeed, after that B757 accident, how many of us were allowed to try it in the sim and learn for someone elses misfortune? Was there not a case recently where there was a pitot problem giving rise to spurious indictaions. I can't remember if they got airborne or aborted; but things can go wrong aloft in any case. We don't all fly brand new shiny NG a/c.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find the trend of 'If you've got passengers behind you on a revenue flight then always use the automatics' in this thread mildly disturbing.
Automatics are very, very good and very useful they are not, in any way, shape or form 100% reliable. As the old computer adage used to go '$hit in $hit out', the reliance on use of full automatics will force the mistakes to go to other places. Wrong runways loaded for take off/landing, wrong STARS, wrong SIDS, incorrect setting of the cleared level etc. The level of FMC/FMA management will be the scene of the new 'handling' errors.
I have always found that when the weather is against me the automatics take a small part of the workload off of me at important times when I need to concentrate on more pressing matters such as diversion fuels, landing limits or system malfunctions. However, the maintainence of SA MUST be paramount at all times thus the aircraft must be monitored, in my opinion, as if the automatics are about to fail. RVSM makes it more interesting as specific losses will require vacating of RVSM airspace which adds to the complications.
The Airline I fly for allows the pilots to conduct manual, full visual approaches when they deem the weather fit. That allows the dropping of the autopilot and the switching off of the flight directors and flying a full manual approach. A 'glitch' in the training system doesn't allow for the disconnecting of auto thrust but the auto thrust may be disconnected if the Captain feels that it is not responding correctly to the aircraft flight path. That seems to happen a lot!
Do I feel by doing manual handling approaches that I am doing my passengers a 'dis-service'? Absolutely not. My primary purpose as a commercial airline pilot is the safe conduct of a revenue flight. I am there as the insurance policy in case things go horribly wrong. How can I be realistically expected to bring an aircraft safely down with multiple systems failures if I haven't kept my manual flying skills 'un-dusted'? The time you really need these skills is not going to be the time when you have weather and systems on your side.
Training is veering away from manual flying and going to use of automatics because it is faster, cheaper and can be done in the sim. If we are to maintain a core, base level of skill then these new pilots need to be advised to do manual approaches at every opportunity under the supervision of experienced Captains. In large companies these guys/girls will be the Captains when you are on your retired staff travel trips! Treat them well!
With money, not experience, being the new driver, the death of the 'Self Improver', the slow down of the influx of experienced military pilots into the Airline world, the explosion of 'Zero to Hero' Nil to ATPL training courses and the increasing automation making the job look easier we are making a rod for our own backs.
The automatics are there for a purpose, to offload the pilot and make the cockpit a decent working environment for doing 4-6 sectors a day on SH or 1 LH sector. They are not perfect, as the Airbus that rolled to 60 degrees AOB on approach to Berlin and disconnected the AP itself, showed me.
Lose your manual flying skills at your peril.
Automatics are very, very good and very useful they are not, in any way, shape or form 100% reliable. As the old computer adage used to go '$hit in $hit out', the reliance on use of full automatics will force the mistakes to go to other places. Wrong runways loaded for take off/landing, wrong STARS, wrong SIDS, incorrect setting of the cleared level etc. The level of FMC/FMA management will be the scene of the new 'handling' errors.
I have always found that when the weather is against me the automatics take a small part of the workload off of me at important times when I need to concentrate on more pressing matters such as diversion fuels, landing limits or system malfunctions. However, the maintainence of SA MUST be paramount at all times thus the aircraft must be monitored, in my opinion, as if the automatics are about to fail. RVSM makes it more interesting as specific losses will require vacating of RVSM airspace which adds to the complications.
The Airline I fly for allows the pilots to conduct manual, full visual approaches when they deem the weather fit. That allows the dropping of the autopilot and the switching off of the flight directors and flying a full manual approach. A 'glitch' in the training system doesn't allow for the disconnecting of auto thrust but the auto thrust may be disconnected if the Captain feels that it is not responding correctly to the aircraft flight path. That seems to happen a lot!
Do I feel by doing manual handling approaches that I am doing my passengers a 'dis-service'? Absolutely not. My primary purpose as a commercial airline pilot is the safe conduct of a revenue flight. I am there as the insurance policy in case things go horribly wrong. How can I be realistically expected to bring an aircraft safely down with multiple systems failures if I haven't kept my manual flying skills 'un-dusted'? The time you really need these skills is not going to be the time when you have weather and systems on your side.
Training is veering away from manual flying and going to use of automatics because it is faster, cheaper and can be done in the sim. If we are to maintain a core, base level of skill then these new pilots need to be advised to do manual approaches at every opportunity under the supervision of experienced Captains. In large companies these guys/girls will be the Captains when you are on your retired staff travel trips! Treat them well!
With money, not experience, being the new driver, the death of the 'Self Improver', the slow down of the influx of experienced military pilots into the Airline world, the explosion of 'Zero to Hero' Nil to ATPL training courses and the increasing automation making the job look easier we are making a rod for our own backs.
The automatics are there for a purpose, to offload the pilot and make the cockpit a decent working environment for doing 4-6 sectors a day on SH or 1 LH sector. They are not perfect, as the Airbus that rolled to 60 degrees AOB on approach to Berlin and disconnected the AP itself, showed me.
Lose your manual flying skills at your peril.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A few lines to recent posts, I'm neither airline nor active, but had gained diverse quality and quantity experience over decades in the cockpit and the committees.
a. The committees writing SOPs should be controlled by active duty captains, not retired or beauroctatic, so their inputs stay in touch with the real world.
b. PF should be able following preflight briefing (and captain consent) to make any portion of flight he deems necessary, flown manually. On revenue flights, practice of faults and system emergencies should have clear guidelines, to maintain risk at safe levels.
c. I had long arguments and ongoing battles on such issues with upper management,who often due to history didn't comprehend the subject matter. I never gave up till I won, and the rersult reflecting accident free record for decades with 100,000s flights by numerous pilots of all skill levels. No stardust magic, just risk management.
d. I view the current situation as depicted by accident investigation results to be caused by:
1. Insufficient aircrew personell selection for cognitive, psycho-motoric and leadership qualities.
2. Insufficient training in 3-dimensional fluid flight, in flight in relation to other proximate aircraft, near envelope boundaries, and of non-routine complex emergencies, as in my military past. It provides a higher degree of situational awareness and ability to cope with the unexpected. Textbook is enemy when you recite every 6 months the same exact few standard phrases as qualification criteria.
3. Cockpit automation while nowadays reliable and convenient, is hiding many pitfalls to the unaware pilot, a result of information saturation, due to display integration and built-in system compexity. My only explanation to how qualified people can CFIT B757s when one airspeeed gauge fails.
a. The committees writing SOPs should be controlled by active duty captains, not retired or beauroctatic, so their inputs stay in touch with the real world.
b. PF should be able following preflight briefing (and captain consent) to make any portion of flight he deems necessary, flown manually. On revenue flights, practice of faults and system emergencies should have clear guidelines, to maintain risk at safe levels.
c. I had long arguments and ongoing battles on such issues with upper management,who often due to history didn't comprehend the subject matter. I never gave up till I won, and the rersult reflecting accident free record for decades with 100,000s flights by numerous pilots of all skill levels. No stardust magic, just risk management.
d. I view the current situation as depicted by accident investigation results to be caused by:
1. Insufficient aircrew personell selection for cognitive, psycho-motoric and leadership qualities.
2. Insufficient training in 3-dimensional fluid flight, in flight in relation to other proximate aircraft, near envelope boundaries, and of non-routine complex emergencies, as in my military past. It provides a higher degree of situational awareness and ability to cope with the unexpected. Textbook is enemy when you recite every 6 months the same exact few standard phrases as qualification criteria.
3. Cockpit automation while nowadays reliable and convenient, is hiding many pitfalls to the unaware pilot, a result of information saturation, due to display integration and built-in system compexity. My only explanation to how qualified people can CFIT B757s when one airspeeed gauge fails.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: North America
Age: 64
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
handling skills weak, I'm shocked and surprised - - - not.
I just finished reading/scanning all 217 previous posts, and it has been an interesting and enjoyable Sunday morning read. What stood out to me was the vast range of philosophy that exists regarding the use of automation. A passenger could get either of the two extremes; one commander never turning off the automation including using the autoland feature at the destination (VFR). The next commander hand flying the Whale up into the upper atmosphere and back down to the runway to Cat 1 minimums; it’s a big world “Viva la differance”.
As a 50 year old current 737 NG captain sitting in the back I know who I would prefer to be flying the jet. I will take the man/woman who chooses to hand fly, every day of the week.
I learned to fly back in the late 70s. I am glad my instructors taught me to hold on ADF bearings in a cross wind, and determine distance by calculating the degrees change to station and time. I’m grateful I cut my teeth flying passengers into and out of remote airstrips in marginal weather with lots of cross winds. My skills were never as sharp as they were when I was flying single pilot multi engine IFR without an autopilot day in day out. I have done flight instructing, bush flying, commuter, cargo, corporate experience building over decades, and I think I am a better pilot for having climbed the ladder.
Military pilots are fine; most of them have done things with jets I will never do. That is wonderful I’m duly impressed. However, if I have my choice, I would rather fly with a civilian who has gone through the stages: flight instructor, cargo, commuter airline. Give me a first officer who has served as a Captain (2 or more years) on a commuter turboprop flying 8 sectors a day in and out of weather and making all the related decisions, and I will just about guarantee you a delightful day of flying with an individual possessing enviable flying skills. {Buffalo-Captain was recent upgrade, FO was quite new-sure there are exceptions.}
And that brings me back to the origin of this thread:
I have yet to ever need to question my partner’s “handling skills”. With a mature aviation background {no one year wonders at our outfit} the individual has a wealth of knowledge and experience to fall back on. As for myself, I need to turn the “magic” off once in a while to refresh the scan and motor skills. Thankfully my company encourages this.
Now somebody else takes a low time pilot and places them in the pointy end of a complicated jet, then takes the automation that pilot has trained on away and is "concerned' when they observe some deficiencies. Go figure! What did you expect?
As a 50 year old current 737 NG captain sitting in the back I know who I would prefer to be flying the jet. I will take the man/woman who chooses to hand fly, every day of the week.
I learned to fly back in the late 70s. I am glad my instructors taught me to hold on ADF bearings in a cross wind, and determine distance by calculating the degrees change to station and time. I’m grateful I cut my teeth flying passengers into and out of remote airstrips in marginal weather with lots of cross winds. My skills were never as sharp as they were when I was flying single pilot multi engine IFR without an autopilot day in day out. I have done flight instructing, bush flying, commuter, cargo, corporate experience building over decades, and I think I am a better pilot for having climbed the ladder.
Military pilots are fine; most of them have done things with jets I will never do. That is wonderful I’m duly impressed. However, if I have my choice, I would rather fly with a civilian who has gone through the stages: flight instructor, cargo, commuter airline. Give me a first officer who has served as a Captain (2 or more years) on a commuter turboprop flying 8 sectors a day in and out of weather and making all the related decisions, and I will just about guarantee you a delightful day of flying with an individual possessing enviable flying skills. {Buffalo-Captain was recent upgrade, FO was quite new-sure there are exceptions.}
And that brings me back to the origin of this thread:
Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
I have yet to ever need to question my partner’s “handling skills”. With a mature aviation background {no one year wonders at our outfit} the individual has a wealth of knowledge and experience to fall back on. As for myself, I need to turn the “magic” off once in a while to refresh the scan and motor skills. Thankfully my company encourages this.
Now somebody else takes a low time pilot and places them in the pointy end of a complicated jet, then takes the automation that pilot has trained on away and is "concerned' when they observe some deficiencies. Go figure! What did you expect?
Last edited by Northbeach; 16th Nov 2009 at 04:17.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is some confusion, I feel, creeping into airline philosophies. I can understand that FLT Ops want to maximise saftey, and they believe the autos can do a very safe job if SOP's are followed. The reliability speaks for it self. SOP's also help the pilot who is nervous about making his own decisions about whether to go visual, self position etc. or not. The criterea are written down and if you screw it up you are on your own; so stay inside the SOP nest. What I find odd is an airline that advocates keeping the flying skills active by flying SID's & Climb outs. This is at constant power, few config changes and just following the FD. This is not honing flying skills. Some suggest that a visual approach can be useful in time/fuel saving, but use the automatics to fly it. How does the last 500' hand flying hone your skills? A hand flown visual approach with all the config changes, and MK.1 eyeball descent path until intecepting whatever aids are provided, will do far more to keep skills honed than the departure profiles ever will. Yet this is discouraged. We have progressed backwards in the last 15 years in the search of saftey. It will work until something goes wrong and the crews can not handle it. Then there will be a re-think. Will it be too late then? There are destinations, e.g. Samos, Calvi (circle north Rwy) SZB(circle north Rwy), CFU(south Rwy) where basic low level piloting skills are required, and sometimes at night or minimum weather. Was it not the case that all Cathay captains had to fly the approach into Kai Tak. Some did not pass this filter of hand flying. What would it be like today, I wonder.
But again, it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think. Simulator time is being reduced (costs), keep approaches simple via SOP's on the line, (safety & costs), Airports more busy so ATC is flying the a/c, (congestion). The opportunity to reverse the process is not always there, nor the will from upstairs. Their question is always "Why?". Our reply is the "what if.......". Theirs is "it is unlikely to happen". And so the discussion keeps going round in circles. It needs C.P's. piloting skills attitude to inject the culture into an airline. To change it across the industry is nigh impossible.
But again, it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think. Simulator time is being reduced (costs), keep approaches simple via SOP's on the line, (safety & costs), Airports more busy so ATC is flying the a/c, (congestion). The opportunity to reverse the process is not always there, nor the will from upstairs. Their question is always "Why?". Our reply is the "what if.......". Theirs is "it is unlikely to happen". And so the discussion keeps going round in circles. It needs C.P's. piloting skills attitude to inject the culture into an airline. To change it across the industry is nigh impossible.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT5 wrote:
"it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think."
This has been taking place for decades now, look at NTSB reports. Still not enough for awakening unfortunately.
"it will take a mishandled accident to awaken everyone and cause a re-think."
This has been taking place for decades now, look at NTSB reports. Still not enough for awakening unfortunately.
A hand flown visual approach with all the config changes, and MK.1 eyeball descent path until intecepting whatever aids are provided, will do far more to keep skills honed than the departure profiles ever will. Yet this is discouraged
Example and this happened:
F/O announces with deep breath he will hand fly a visual approach down the ILS. At that point, aircraft is 20 miles from touch down in CAVOK and approaching the localiser on radar vectors. Captain says go ahead my boy - fill your boots and good to see some initiative (or words to that effect). Aircraft still steadily tracking towards centreline when captain says when are you going to hand fly like you said you wanted to?
Steady on sez the PF - I ain't gonna hand fly until the autopilot has locked on to the localiser just in case I fly through the centreline...
AP locks on the localiser and a tremulous PF announces he is going to disengaged the AP and (shudder) hand fly the approach. . Click-click goes the autopilot disconnect and captain says aren't you going to switch off the flight director for your hand flown approach?
You must be kidding says the second in command - I might go unstable - anyway I'm leaving the FD on all the way down in case there is a go around....
That is what blind automation does for your confidence.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Written a year or two before Colgan and THY accidents - Martha assesses the state of airline academies in the last few paragraphs of this article.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HANDLING SKILLS? - AUTOMATION CULTURE & FLIGHT MANAGEMENT DEPT!
In my opinion a strong automation culture has developped over time which requires considerable efforts to be reversed if so desired. Flight management departments of the majority of airlines nowadays seem to rely more & more on the reliability statistics of automated systems.
Also the culture exists that because of Flight Data Monitoring systems and flight management culture, pilots are afraid or have no desire whatsoever having to explain themselves in case flight paramenters weren't as accurate as they should have been. The slightest increase of probability having to report or explain themselves in the office is a main reason to keep the autopilot engaged to nearly the flare to landing! Possible repurcussions to pilots is also a main ingredient for pilots to do as little handflying as possible! There again because of the automation has been pushed down our throats over the last decade that senior management pilots no longer recognize the benefits and contribution to flight safety associated with having a high level of handflying skills. Pilots nowadays have been robbed from their skills and young cadets have never aquired good manual flying skills. Modern initial cadet flight training programs no longer emphasizes on manual flying but rather the development and correct application of SOP's. To me is that's what you do when you progam the hardware. We are humans and not computers! The result is that cadets have never been given the opportunity to even develop their skills in the first place. The end result is very little or no confidence in themselves or their collegues when it comes to handflying. Confidence in automated systems is at an all time high among pilots. To reverse this culture the airlines have to be prepared to make the investment to re-train pilots in handflying. This will mean multiple sim sessions and line training sectors. This cost a lot of money!! In the current climate I don't see or very very few or none are prepared to make that investment. Relying on reliability statistics of automated systems is a lot cheaper!!
To sum it all up:
- PILOT CULTURE!!!!! AND SOP's!!! needs to change!!!!
- Main pilot objective: Protect his/her, career progression, lifestyle and salary and to stay out of the office at all times!!!
For the ones who do not recognize the benefits of having strong manual flying skills please read on:
To begin when having a high level of manual flying skills the pilot knows his aircraft better, knows what the aircraft can do which directly translates into a better anticipation ability overall. He/she can recognize threats to flight safety much further ahead of time and take action before things get even close to getting out of control. Being able to sense and feel the aircraft with more human sensors than just the eyes on the instrument panel. This is also what decreases workload!! Not having your eyes racing over instrument panels all the time. Not to forget that when flying manual on a daily basis you will become accustomed to handflying to such a point that it becomes a routine operation and is no longer an additional workload on the pilot. This way you built up additional spare capacity which will become especially usefull when then the autopilot is used. The continuous aim to workload reduction disconnects the pilot from the aircraft with a further loss of individual skills. Humans need practice and continous involvement to maintain their efectiveness! How can they prevent accidents/ act as a last line of defense if they have been deprived of their skills and tools to even recognize threats! When having strong manual flying skills also allows you to further develop your multi-tasking abilities which is a basic requirement for the FAA commercial pilot certificate. (Just read the FAA PTS/Flying Training Handbook) The ability of being able to multi task, recognize threats further ahead directly increases your situational awareness without additional efforts.
DO I NEED TO SAY ANY MORE!!! AMEN!!!
In my opinion a strong automation culture has developped over time which requires considerable efforts to be reversed if so desired. Flight management departments of the majority of airlines nowadays seem to rely more & more on the reliability statistics of automated systems.
Also the culture exists that because of Flight Data Monitoring systems and flight management culture, pilots are afraid or have no desire whatsoever having to explain themselves in case flight paramenters weren't as accurate as they should have been. The slightest increase of probability having to report or explain themselves in the office is a main reason to keep the autopilot engaged to nearly the flare to landing! Possible repurcussions to pilots is also a main ingredient for pilots to do as little handflying as possible! There again because of the automation has been pushed down our throats over the last decade that senior management pilots no longer recognize the benefits and contribution to flight safety associated with having a high level of handflying skills. Pilots nowadays have been robbed from their skills and young cadets have never aquired good manual flying skills. Modern initial cadet flight training programs no longer emphasizes on manual flying but rather the development and correct application of SOP's. To me is that's what you do when you progam the hardware. We are humans and not computers! The result is that cadets have never been given the opportunity to even develop their skills in the first place. The end result is very little or no confidence in themselves or their collegues when it comes to handflying. Confidence in automated systems is at an all time high among pilots. To reverse this culture the airlines have to be prepared to make the investment to re-train pilots in handflying. This will mean multiple sim sessions and line training sectors. This cost a lot of money!! In the current climate I don't see or very very few or none are prepared to make that investment. Relying on reliability statistics of automated systems is a lot cheaper!!
To sum it all up:
- PILOT CULTURE!!!!! AND SOP's!!! needs to change!!!!
- Main pilot objective: Protect his/her, career progression, lifestyle and salary and to stay out of the office at all times!!!
For the ones who do not recognize the benefits of having strong manual flying skills please read on:
To begin when having a high level of manual flying skills the pilot knows his aircraft better, knows what the aircraft can do which directly translates into a better anticipation ability overall. He/she can recognize threats to flight safety much further ahead of time and take action before things get even close to getting out of control. Being able to sense and feel the aircraft with more human sensors than just the eyes on the instrument panel. This is also what decreases workload!! Not having your eyes racing over instrument panels all the time. Not to forget that when flying manual on a daily basis you will become accustomed to handflying to such a point that it becomes a routine operation and is no longer an additional workload on the pilot. This way you built up additional spare capacity which will become especially usefull when then the autopilot is used. The continuous aim to workload reduction disconnects the pilot from the aircraft with a further loss of individual skills. Humans need practice and continous involvement to maintain their efectiveness! How can they prevent accidents/ act as a last line of defense if they have been deprived of their skills and tools to even recognize threats! When having strong manual flying skills also allows you to further develop your multi-tasking abilities which is a basic requirement for the FAA commercial pilot certificate. (Just read the FAA PTS/Flying Training Handbook) The ability of being able to multi task, recognize threats further ahead directly increases your situational awareness without additional efforts.
DO I NEED TO SAY ANY MORE!!! AMEN!!!
Last edited by FL XXX; 16th Dec 2009 at 08:38.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The slightest increase of probability having to report or explain themselves in the office is a main reason to keep the autopilot engaged to nearly the flare to landing!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we all have to admit the industry has changed. When all goes well, life is good. But ... when things happen, the crew doesn't appear to be ready for it. I don't think it's an Airbus problem or a Boeing problem -- it's an airline problem. If we are going to insist that the crew fly using automation, it is imperative that training be changed to allow the crews to maintain (perhaps obtain) basic flying skills and responses to unusual situations.
Dick Newman
Dick Newman
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good luck with your career. Looks like you are off to a good start. Manual flying skills are important. Knowing all the right buttons to push on automatic airplanes can be learned quickly, manual flying skills can't. When I was flying Beach D18's the airplane in the attitude indicator had been missing for month. I guess the glue got old and it fell off but we still did ILS approaches to minimums. When I retired flying the B757 I found the hardest airport our airline flew into and flew there the last 6 years. Some studies call it the most dangerous airport in the world, TGU Honduras. It was all manual everything. Loved it.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fly with some very competant F/O's. Their handling is quite good for their lowly hours. However, when the say they have the rwy visual - not flying a visual approach but a striaght in ILS in good Wx - after they've disconnected about 15nm out, they still fly head in until OM. Then it's 75% inside 25% outside down to 200'. Their concept of flying visually is not to look outside. This has caused some to fly through the centreline, at which point I suggested that Mk1 eyeball outside the window might help recover the situation. They are glued to the F.D. in CAVOK, specially at night. Not too good to gain a 'feeling' for the a/c.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 'tween posts
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
good and bad of automation
Automation
its an offending equipment to some.
it makes life easy...to some others..
and its a challenge to most....
it affects ones dignity
makes you look stupid most times and makes you out to be a booming hero at others...leaving you wondering whats all the fuss about ?
When TITANIC was sold as unsinkable the capt believed it !
took it through iceberg territory at full steam
When the AIRBUS was sold as un-stallable the crew believed it
and flew it into a forest!!
My take on it-
its good to have as is a top of the model mobile or a laptop
but when the signal is poor, the system hangs, the ones least affected by paranoia are the one who can carry on normal life in the absence of automation be it a pilot an astronaut or a surgeon
its an offending equipment to some.
it makes life easy...to some others..
and its a challenge to most....
it affects ones dignity
makes you look stupid most times and makes you out to be a booming hero at others...leaving you wondering whats all the fuss about ?
When TITANIC was sold as unsinkable the capt believed it !
took it through iceberg territory at full steam
When the AIRBUS was sold as un-stallable the crew believed it
and flew it into a forest!!
My take on it-
its good to have as is a top of the model mobile or a laptop
but when the signal is poor, the system hangs, the ones least affected by paranoia are the one who can carry on normal life in the absence of automation be it a pilot an astronaut or a surgeon