Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
JW411:
Neither would I, because I would steer clear of any operator that encourages any such enterprise. Circling approaches with one engine out, at minima do not belong in the realms of todays heavy jet line operations; simply because the "average joe" (a category to which I believe most of us belong), simply do not do it often enough in normal ops to maintain any reasonable degree of proficiency, (and I'm speaking of airline ops, not "bush flying", no offence to Ryanair crew; they are probably good at it because they are doing it all the time, just as I used to do at one time in old 737 classic days. Autothrottle? Flight Director? What was that? Who needs 'em?! Didn't have them in the Phantom either!).
Nowadays, I'll do a circling approach once in a while on a sim recurrency and that's it. But to do it for real? Fortunately, it has been rarely needed at the places I fly to, but if the case arose, I'm afraid that I would be heading off to more favourable pastures to await an improvement in conditions, and I'm sure my pax would apprecate that, rather than some white knuckle ride round a circling pattern at low level in poor vis with terrain around. Now, if I was boxed in and had no choice, of course I would do it, but throw in some fatigue, pucker factor and the lousy weather that caused one to end up in that situation, then it would most likely not be pretty. Many accidents in the past attest to these simple facts.
You mention the NDB 13 at old Kai Tak; great for the HKG regulars, but for the occasional visitor, with no "local knowledge", it was asking for trouble. Did it once; ATC offered it instead of the full IGS (good wheeze maybe, to see what happened to this newcomer in supposedly CAVOK, except it wasn't, in the summer haze) and I swore never to do it again, simply because my "databank" of visual cues was nonexistent, and the turn onto finals was a little later than planned, (didn't a 747 end up flying down the harbour off this approach? Turned at the wrong island!).
Similarly with JFK 13 Carnarsie; no big deal for the HomeTown boys, but another matter for those that come across it once in a blue moon; at least we have a good look at it in the sim these days, but in a heavy 744 with marginal wx, it's a handful in the real life situation; miss the hotel and your bank angle has triggered an alert. FDAP has a field day here with unstabilised approaches; indeed, exceptions have to be made from the normal limiting parameters where you get a letter from the office to "please explain this approach.....".
The reality is: the "good old days" of "intrepid ace aviator" are over (and the present, much reduced, accident rate bears witness to that). Like it or not, the age of automation is here to stay, together with the era of FDAP, RNP, RVSM and whatever else the lawyers and engineers and beancounters want to come up with. No point kidding ourselves. My company has a great policy; vis below 2000 metres? Autoland recommended; and why not? What are we trying to prove?
Agree absolutely, however,..
AirRabbit
Say no more.......
I would not expect to sit as a passenger in the back of an aircraft behind anyone who could not hand fly the thing using raw data down to minimas with one engine out and then complete a circling approach procedure and land safely.
Nowadays, I'll do a circling approach once in a while on a sim recurrency and that's it. But to do it for real? Fortunately, it has been rarely needed at the places I fly to, but if the case arose, I'm afraid that I would be heading off to more favourable pastures to await an improvement in conditions, and I'm sure my pax would apprecate that, rather than some white knuckle ride round a circling pattern at low level in poor vis with terrain around. Now, if I was boxed in and had no choice, of course I would do it, but throw in some fatigue, pucker factor and the lousy weather that caused one to end up in that situation, then it would most likely not be pretty. Many accidents in the past attest to these simple facts.
You mention the NDB 13 at old Kai Tak; great for the HKG regulars, but for the occasional visitor, with no "local knowledge", it was asking for trouble. Did it once; ATC offered it instead of the full IGS (good wheeze maybe, to see what happened to this newcomer in supposedly CAVOK, except it wasn't, in the summer haze) and I swore never to do it again, simply because my "databank" of visual cues was nonexistent, and the turn onto finals was a little later than planned, (didn't a 747 end up flying down the harbour off this approach? Turned at the wrong island!).
Similarly with JFK 13 Carnarsie; no big deal for the HomeTown boys, but another matter for those that come across it once in a blue moon; at least we have a good look at it in the sim these days, but in a heavy 744 with marginal wx, it's a handful in the real life situation; miss the hotel and your bank angle has triggered an alert. FDAP has a field day here with unstabilised approaches; indeed, exceptions have to be made from the normal limiting parameters where you get a letter from the office to "please explain this approach.....".
The reality is: the "good old days" of "intrepid ace aviator" are over (and the present, much reduced, accident rate bears witness to that). Like it or not, the age of automation is here to stay, together with the era of FDAP, RNP, RVSM and whatever else the lawyers and engineers and beancounters want to come up with. No point kidding ourselves. My company has a great policy; vis below 2000 metres? Autoland recommended; and why not? What are we trying to prove?
My advice; when the weather is sh*t, ALWAYS use the automatics and exercise your LVP skills. For example, if the weather is close to CAT 1 limits, set up for a CAT 2/3 approach and then you will never be surprised.
If the weather is reasonable then use EVERY opportunity to hand fly and use raw data as OFTEN as you can - don't get lazy - you can't afford it.
If the weather is reasonable then use EVERY opportunity to hand fly and use raw data as OFTEN as you can - don't get lazy - you can't afford it.
AirRabbit
Also, I whole-heartedly agree with those here who make it a point to jump on those who want to “play” or “have fun” experimenting with the airplane with passengers on board. That is a supreme NO NO. While simulators are not airplanes … we have to admit that they are a very good approximation of airplanes – and they’re getting better at doing so, every day. My position is to use the training equipment to practice, play, and learn. Yes, it can be fun – and it should be. But because all of us are capable of making mistakes – let’s make sure that we use every opportunity to minimize the mistakes we make with passengers on board. Let’s make sure that we practice and experiment in the simulated environment. Once we have developed the skills to operate the airplane using the systems available – then we can operate the airplane using what we've learned and practiced.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 years from now will tell the story on how depending on automation to fly the airplane and not being required to have basic hand flying skills will work out. I think I know the answer. The old pilots will be gone then and just the new pilots will be in control.
bubbers44;
Yes, I think so; - We may even know before then, depending upon how the accident reports go. A simple example comes to mind right away - fatigue. Twenty years ago there was no such thing as fatigue, all accidents were "pilot error", if an organization made its pilots do things that were unsafe, that was totally the pilots' fault; Thirty to fourty years ago, initial courses required one to be able to comprehend systems, sometimes draw them and otherwise know the nuts and bolts. I know one organization that required their crews to be able to send and receive morse code at 5wpm, and before an entry into Kennedy or O'Hare was permitted, to draw the entire terminal area from memory including all the nav-aid frequencies, airways and their tracks.
So, competency and automation accidents, which are essentially invisible to the flight safety and accident investigation process today, may, like the issue of fatigue, begin to gather sufficient legitimacy to actually make it into primary causes.
When that happens, maybe we'll see a turnaround in the present approach which puts MCPL amateurs in seasoned professionals' shoes and return the cockpit to the left and right seats instead of desk-ridden MBA's and other beancounters in windowless offices facing a computer screen who know nothing of the front line. Sorry - I know that sounds unkind and it is NOT personal or focussed on "who". It is the "what" that will bite this industry every time.
15 years from now will tell the story on how depending on automation to fly the airplane and not being required to have basic hand flying skills will work out. I think I know the answer. The old pilots will be gone then and just the new pilots will be in control.
So, competency and automation accidents, which are essentially invisible to the flight safety and accident investigation process today, may, like the issue of fatigue, begin to gather sufficient legitimacy to actually make it into primary causes.
When that happens, maybe we'll see a turnaround in the present approach which puts MCPL amateurs in seasoned professionals' shoes and return the cockpit to the left and right seats instead of desk-ridden MBA's and other beancounters in windowless offices facing a computer screen who know nothing of the front line. Sorry - I know that sounds unkind and it is NOT personal or focussed on "who". It is the "what" that will bite this industry every time.
I know one organization that required their crews to be able to send and receive morse code at 5wpm, and before an entry into Kennedy or O'Hare was permitted, to draw the entire terminal area from memory including all the nav-aid frequencies, airways and their tracks.
Some of my colleagues left to fly for JAL so I know a bit about that legend, (it ain't legend!!), but no, so there's another..., and this was in 1973 - not sure if it's still a requirement. To me it spoke of discipline as much as actual skill. ;-)
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As automation and back-ups and reliability improve to new levels, the 1 pilot and his dog (automated of course) is coming ever closer. In 1980 the B767 could be plugged in at 400' on departure and land itself at the other end. It couldn't takeoff by itself, nor stop itself, but how difficult would that be to engineer? However, would any pax get on board? How many would get on a 1 pilot a/c? How many, boarding via a finger, even know what a/c they are on, know how many pilots there are or even care about any of it? There is blind faith in the CAA's not licencing anything unsafe. If it is EU approved it must be OK. They look only at the price and comfort. The engineers and trainers also look at risk management. If there have been no significant incidents in Xzillion flying hours of type XYZ why train pilots to deal with them. What is needed is automated zombie button pushers who do not let the levels of boredom lead them to thinking "I wonder what will happen if I push this one...". We already have an attitude of don't think, do, with many aspects of our profession. It starts with recruitment. They advertise for multi-tasking, team orientated, clear thinking, well educated, methodical, customer friendly pilots trainees with good leadership qualities. Then, when they've got you, and you are wearing the shiny uniform, you are told to shut up and do as you are told; don't think too much, just do your job. Talk about a mis-match. If they can dumb down the starting requirements to what is really required in the future automated world, and have aeroplane operators who are more practical and have manual skills rather than intellectual qualifications, then the T'c & C's will have really fallen, and so will the ticket price. As it is a customer, bums on seats, driven industry, who's to say they'll be wrong. I'm sure the Hotol would have been fully automated with a crew of button pushers. I doubt V1 cuts would have featured in the training; or perhaps yes, as the CAA's still looked backwards.
But then I could also take the B767 into Calvi for a circle within the mountains. Pax wanted to there, so the pilots had to have the skills. Is there a case for various types of pilot qualifications? The LHR-any major airport pilot, and the Greek islands on a thunderous night type pilot? There are float-plane licences, crop spray licences, aerobatic licences, N.Atlantic MNPS ratings, CAT C airfield ratings, so why not major route- big aeroplane only ratings, and the rest of us. Trouble with that is the unions will cream off the most bucks for the glamorous easiest jobs, and the real hands-on pilots will get the crumbs. However, if the above becomes true, and the big aeroplane only drivers have very basic licences and annual tests on their excellent button pushing skills with their eyes closed, perhaps the pie will be cut differently. The last 40 years may help foretell the next 40. Jets, autolands, higher speeds, longer ranges, no F.E's., beds on board for the lucky ones, FDR's & CVR's, ETOPS, etc. etc.
This is all very tongue in cheek, and it's getting harder to make predictions, especially about the future.
But then I could also take the B767 into Calvi for a circle within the mountains. Pax wanted to there, so the pilots had to have the skills. Is there a case for various types of pilot qualifications? The LHR-any major airport pilot, and the Greek islands on a thunderous night type pilot? There are float-plane licences, crop spray licences, aerobatic licences, N.Atlantic MNPS ratings, CAT C airfield ratings, so why not major route- big aeroplane only ratings, and the rest of us. Trouble with that is the unions will cream off the most bucks for the glamorous easiest jobs, and the real hands-on pilots will get the crumbs. However, if the above becomes true, and the big aeroplane only drivers have very basic licences and annual tests on their excellent button pushing skills with their eyes closed, perhaps the pie will be cut differently. The last 40 years may help foretell the next 40. Jets, autolands, higher speeds, longer ranges, no F.E's., beds on board for the lucky ones, FDR's & CVR's, ETOPS, etc. etc.
This is all very tongue in cheek, and it's getting harder to make predictions, especially about the future.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the future
If we see a graph showing deck crew members versus time, it is like a countdown: 5, 4, 3, 2....
I seems as if they are planning a soft transition to 0:
It is 1.5, then 0.5, then 0. The trick is in the 1.5 to 0.5 step.
Regarding flying skills
In 320s there had been only a few catastrophic crashes. A great part of them occurred while handflying. I guess they think: No more hand flying, no more accidents. They probably accept the possibility of an accident due to lack of hand flying skills after a failure rendering automation useless as a good price.
If we see a graph showing deck crew members versus time, it is like a countdown: 5, 4, 3, 2....
I seems as if they are planning a soft transition to 0:
It is 1.5, then 0.5, then 0. The trick is in the 1.5 to 0.5 step.
Regarding flying skills
In 320s there had been only a few catastrophic crashes. A great part of them occurred while handflying. I guess they think: No more hand flying, no more accidents. They probably accept the possibility of an accident due to lack of hand flying skills after a failure rendering automation useless as a good price.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Durham
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Skills
Had a hell of fast descent spiral into Vienna last time I was in an Air Berlin liner. No shortage of skills here. Real airmanship. I don't want to fly with a company who values MBAs above the rest of the staff. Nor do I want to fly with a company who has brainwashed the flight deck staff into following "company policy" in direct contravention of a given situation.
Airbus had a motive behind this statement and I don't believe it was without a good reason. Maybe we will discover some research, privvy to Airbus, that may suggest that airman may be too reliant on the machine.
Airbus had a motive behind this statement and I don't believe it was without a good reason. Maybe we will discover some research, privvy to Airbus, that may suggest that airman may be too reliant on the machine.
and when circling requires a mayday call
The FAA ATPL stipulates in the PTS's that the pilot seeking a certificate under examination must be the obvious master of the airplane....
{Loofth Hahnsah}
???
really it's killing me
The FAA ATPL stipulates in the PTS's that the pilot seeking a certificate under examination must be the obvious master of the airplane....
{Loofth Hahnsah}
???really it's killing me
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 21st Jan 2010 at 00:26.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Posts saying 15 years from now automatic airplanes will make basic flying skills required in the wave of the future are the old school pilots not used to total automation. The new pilots are taught automation and how to master it. Soon an aircraft will takeoff and land with a pilot monitoring the automation. No need for pilot skills.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For more on the automation versus hand flying skills in modern airliners have a look at the Australian forum D&G Reporting Points under the thread called "Stick to the automatics, son - pure flying skills are for the birds".
Join Date: May 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone else recall the TV Eye programme which looked at the Airbus track record, many years ago. I will never forget the quotation by Roger Beteille, Airbus Industrie General Manager at the time. He said, " We don't tell pilots how to fly aeroplanes and we don't expect them to tell us how to design them." He retired in 1984 so I doubt that he is following this thread! My view as an ex 777 pilot and others is that as systems evolve so to do the pilots. You can't 'blame' anyone for being unable to hand fly if they are designed out of the system. The safety record since the introduction of late generation airliners is really exceptional.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: B.C.
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Came off the big bus last year to fly the 777 and have now bid a pay cut to the 320 to go flying again. My situational awareness has never been so poor ( I did 25 years on the 737-200. From my perspective, as limited as it is, my flying skills are at the bottom right now. I like to fly. I watched a 320 FO while I was jumpseating home make that little bus dance using both automation and intervention (is that a Boeing term), a thing of beauty.
Joe
Joe
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
737, 320... if you are always flying with AP ON, they are equally flown by computers.
If you fly them by hand, in the 737 you have to pull to raise the nose. So you have in the 320. In both you have to push to lower de nose. And so on. The only difference is in the autotrim (which makes it easier) and the lack of feel. You still have to decide if you need to pitch up or down.
If you fly them by hand, in the 737 you have to pull to raise the nose. So you have in the 320. In both you have to push to lower de nose. And so on. The only difference is in the autotrim (which makes it easier) and the lack of feel. You still have to decide if you need to pitch up or down.
