Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Guest
Posts: n/a
Phantom
I understand where you're coming from but I couldn't agree less.
Auto flight is great 'til it stops. And stop it does!
If you rarely hand fly then you could find yourself poorly equipped for what you're holding in your hands.
I think excessive use of autos breeds:
Laziness.
Complacency.
I understand where you're coming from but I couldn't agree less.
Auto flight is great 'til it stops. And stop it does!
If you rarely hand fly then you could find yourself poorly equipped for what you're holding in your hands.
I think excessive use of autos breeds:
Laziness.
Complacency.
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 1998
Location: err, *******, we have a problem
Age: 58
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had an entertaining discussion with a surgeon today and the subject of airline\healthcare parallels came up. The discussion involved a very insightful comment from her - an aircraft takes off in a definable condition. A patient may turn up at hospital in a desperate state, and requires definitive and urgent attention. The surgeon described this situation in aviation terms as a pilot materialising in the captain's seat with an aircraft in severe difficulty and on its way to crash unless interventions were made. The surgeon has a PPL by the way.
I'm certainly thinking now, particularly following John Farley's post earlier, about the relative merits of "handling" versus "operating," and the interface between the two. I can't help but feel that they are not mutually exclusive, regardless of the corporate or legislative environment we work within. My view, having watched pilot handling skills degrade within my own company following a decision to ban manual thrust handling on Airbus (a previous type) is that it is a necessary function of risk management to allow practice under controlled conditions; example, I as Captain would neither perform nor permit a fully hand flown approach into the London TMA at rush hour to minimums, as the workload for the non-handler would be detrimental to flight safety. But I would certainly allow same on a quiet day as long as I felt comfortable with it and felt it was within either the capability of the P2 flying or my own capability to monitor, given rest, awareness, workload issues. After all, part of my remit is development of P2's, and I also include personal maintenance of skill within that remit; part of the trust placed in me by the award of command is that I have the necessary judgement to know when to say no.
I feel that is the thrust of the debate, with a strong nod of respect to the well-considered and experienced views of John F. Indeed, knowledge of your own situation is perhaps the ultimate expression of situational awareness.
One of the best calls I have ever seen in my career was with a young copilot flying a fully manual approach into LHR, a few years back. We were vectored tight, a little hot, little high, and he asked for the gear. Just as I was thinking "yep, we need the gear." Everything was working out fine, I'm quite comfortable. After a short while, he asks for the flight directors back, so I give them to him, then he re-engages the autopilot. Without me asking, he then says, "With the gear down, the attitudes were all wrong, I was getting maxed out."
Once we were on the ground, I congratulated him for what I still consider the single best call I have seen from the other seat; he was struggling, though not apparent to me, and elected for the safest route. The definition of workload management. So despite my comfort in the simple fact he was doing a good job, he felt empowered enough to call a halt to it without having some form of ego/machismo called into question. THAT, in my opinion, is what we should perhaps be struggling toward, as to me it indicates the ideal level of awareness that we, as pilots, should not just possess but foster.
Thank you to all the contributors for providing a thread and debate that reinforces my decision to devote my spare time to moderating this forum. A thread that also reminds me why this forum is the number one aviation site on the web.
Squid (moderator hat off, for a few minutes.)
It is very difficult to compare the safety aspects of automation with manual flight. An aircraft is designed, built, and tested against known and tried standards, often hard learnt from experience - (FAR / CS 25); the human design and operation has no such reference book.
Both technology (automation) and humans have their positive attributes, each able to excel in certain situations, but whereas technology alone might provide a known standard of reliability, the human is subject to error (so too is technology, as discussed previously via the human in design – so triplicate, etc).
Automation has been used where either the human physical and/or mental capability is limiting, e.g. autoland in low visibility; the activity is driven by the situation.
Humans are good at solving problems, etc, the unknowns, although still subject to error.
As the general operating situation (the state of the industry) puts more pressure on the human, the apparent error rate increases; this is often interpreted as declining skill, but actually it is a sign of reduced safety margins. Thus, looking at the situations in which automation and humans work and their respective safety margins might provide a more meaningful comparison.
If the industry continues to demand economic efficiencies which constrain human flexibility and approach the limits of physical and mental capability, then automation, with an appropriate level of reliability for the situation has to be considered, e.g. Auto flight, RNAV, RVSM.
Alternatively, if the industry still needs the human flexibility, then the situation in which the human operates must be constrained to accommodate the limits of human performance, and the susceptibility to error.
Unlike automation, human reliability cannot be specified, thus the situation has to change to take account of the human.
I suspect that the practical solution lies somewhere inbetween these alternatives – technology and the human working together.
In current operations, we have automation and we have an industry ‘situation’; perhaps the problem is that we haven’t fully understood where the limits of each are and how to adjust reliability and situations to maintain a high standard of safety. We need to improve our understanding of both ourselves and the ‘situation’ (and equipment) in which we work.
A significant human attribute is that we can ‘create’ safety by manipulating situations, choosing where and when to use automation, but only if the background situation (crew selection, training, organization) provides sufficient margin from the limits of human performance.
If the reliability of automation is such that failure requires human intervention, then the residual system, indications, and operating environment must enable realistic human performance, this includes the level of training, e.g. Cat 3B autoland degrades - land - as the system is reliable; Cat 3A autoland fails – GA (perhaps the alternative of a manual landing has a reduced safety margin – pushing the boundary of human limits).
Both technology (automation) and humans have their positive attributes, each able to excel in certain situations, but whereas technology alone might provide a known standard of reliability, the human is subject to error (so too is technology, as discussed previously via the human in design – so triplicate, etc).
Automation has been used where either the human physical and/or mental capability is limiting, e.g. autoland in low visibility; the activity is driven by the situation.
Humans are good at solving problems, etc, the unknowns, although still subject to error.
As the general operating situation (the state of the industry) puts more pressure on the human, the apparent error rate increases; this is often interpreted as declining skill, but actually it is a sign of reduced safety margins. Thus, looking at the situations in which automation and humans work and their respective safety margins might provide a more meaningful comparison.
If the industry continues to demand economic efficiencies which constrain human flexibility and approach the limits of physical and mental capability, then automation, with an appropriate level of reliability for the situation has to be considered, e.g. Auto flight, RNAV, RVSM.
Alternatively, if the industry still needs the human flexibility, then the situation in which the human operates must be constrained to accommodate the limits of human performance, and the susceptibility to error.
Unlike automation, human reliability cannot be specified, thus the situation has to change to take account of the human.
I suspect that the practical solution lies somewhere inbetween these alternatives – technology and the human working together.
In current operations, we have automation and we have an industry ‘situation’; perhaps the problem is that we haven’t fully understood where the limits of each are and how to adjust reliability and situations to maintain a high standard of safety. We need to improve our understanding of both ourselves and the ‘situation’ (and equipment) in which we work.
A significant human attribute is that we can ‘create’ safety by manipulating situations, choosing where and when to use automation, but only if the background situation (crew selection, training, organization) provides sufficient margin from the limits of human performance.
If the reliability of automation is such that failure requires human intervention, then the residual system, indications, and operating environment must enable realistic human performance, this includes the level of training, e.g. Cat 3B autoland degrades - land - as the system is reliable; Cat 3A autoland fails – GA (perhaps the alternative of a manual landing has a reduced safety margin – pushing the boundary of human limits).
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any pilot who does not routinely handfly the aircraft WITHOUT the F/D has no place on the flightdeck. And I surely do not want myself or my family subjected to his/hers flying "skills" should the need arise to prove them.
Any Airline that forbids raw-data flying should have its AOC revoked for serious breaches in training and safety and the idiots making these rules should be fired on the spot.
Voila, again a very stern view by me to counter some of these computer geeks wanting the aura of being a pilot but being in reality a willing slave of automation without any spine, gut or responsability towards its proficiency and as a result a danger in the air.
You MUST be able to fly a raw-date approach on-speed, on-glide and SMOOTHLY or what are you doing in the cockpit anyhow?! It is the BASIC of being a pilot, the thing they taught you the very first flying lesson.
Any Airline that forbids raw-data flying should have its AOC revoked for serious breaches in training and safety and the idiots making these rules should be fired on the spot.
Voila, again a very stern view by me to counter some of these computer geeks wanting the aura of being a pilot but being in reality a willing slave of automation without any spine, gut or responsability towards its proficiency and as a result a danger in the air.
You MUST be able to fly a raw-date approach on-speed, on-glide and SMOOTHLY or what are you doing in the cockpit anyhow?! It is the BASIC of being a pilot, the thing they taught you the very first flying lesson.
Plastic PPRuNer
Here - The Law of Leaky Abstractions - Joel on Software
...is an interesting article about the perils of writing computer software using tools designed to make it quicker and easier. But making it quicker and easier abstracts away what is really going on under the hood so that when the abstraction is wrong/leaky the coder who has never written code to the "bare-metal" (as older coders have) is often completely lost.
It seems to me that cockpit automation tends to "abstract away" the actual task of flying the aircraft, with not always happy results when the abstraction breaks down.
Quite an interesting parallel I thought....
Mac
...is an interesting article about the perils of writing computer software using tools designed to make it quicker and easier. But making it quicker and easier abstracts away what is really going on under the hood so that when the abstraction is wrong/leaky the coder who has never written code to the "bare-metal" (as older coders have) is often completely lost.
It seems to me that cockpit automation tends to "abstract away" the actual task of flying the aircraft, with not always happy results when the abstraction breaks down.
Quite an interesting parallel I thought....
Mac
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 think it is a taken that the autos are much better to be used in certain circumstances. This is both for pax comfort, the exercising of good airmanship and flight management, and safety. However, what I often see is the autopilot taking the low experienced F/O for a ride. plug it in and off we go; yes, but to where? This is what I told it to do so I expect it to do it. Wait until you get married and try that philosophy. Why are aeroplanes female? (awaiting incoming: head down)
They need nurturing, watching and a helping hand now and then. If you don't what they should be doing, how & when, then it's difficult to intervene in time with a careful nudge. (aeroplanes that is)
Understanding the performance envelope is more possible with good hands on experience. Achieving this in the 80's on needles & dials a/c around the Greek islands was the norm and very enjoyable. I can't remember too many prangs in that enviroment and era.
I still thnik the pax expect us to be able to save the day when windows 69 takes a dislike to events and wants a day off. We should expect a major uproar if an accident report says 'george' crashed the a/c because the pilots let it. Ah, but then that has already happened, hasn't it, and where is the lasting uproar not only from pax but from CAA's? Decayed very quickly after every event.
How to achieve the level of handling skills from the past?...I don't know. It wasn't only the handling skills that were better, it was the ability to assimilate a lolt of information AND fly the a/c manually. You had only a DME, a needle and an altimeter to execute a CDA; and sometimes not even a DME. The ability to create a mental picture of where you were in 4 dimensions was necessary. It is not any longer. The MAP and VNAV makes it so easy, but still situational awareness is not as good as it should be. Take away the VNAV bug and look out of the window to fly a visual would be a No No for some pilots. It is considered almost dangerous to fly an approach with no G.P guidance, and sometimes not allowed at night. What ever happened to basic Mk.1 eyeball flying? Handling skills is one thing, but assessing a correct G.P should be as natural as knowing where the wind is coming from to a sailor. I see too many F/O's flying the F.D down to minima and beyond on a clear day. They have not been instilled with, 'set a sensible power, set a correct attitude, trim it, and then guide it gently, with fine corrections down to the TDZ by looking at the crash point and keeping that in the same place of the window. With so much head-in flying, assessing a correct G.P. is difficult to learn in the first place.
1 hour sim per year is not enough to learn these skills. Real life is the only way, but I understand fully why C.P's are reluctant to encourage daily piloting. They are answerable to the safety and financial people, and ulitmately so are we.
Difficult to find a solution to all our frustrations. Imagine you are in the C.P's shoes. What would you, exactly? Would you 'take the risk', or take the path of least risk as your bosses see it? I'm told that the arrival of bright sunny days also brings the increase in high energy approaches and gate busts. It is very sad, but the C.P's have an obligation to find a short-term solution. Automatics to full approaches or not too much of a short cut for a visual. The longterm solution to piloting skills will take a long time to find and enact. All C.P's have their own opinion. A coordinated response will only come via coordinated CAA's demanding some requirements, and I doubt that will happen.
I've never been to any 'training conferences', but I wonder what topics are discussed there and what conclusions were drawn and philosophies adopted. Can anyone help us with some insight?
Keep the blue side up.
They need nurturing, watching and a helping hand now and then. If you don't what they should be doing, how & when, then it's difficult to intervene in time with a careful nudge. (aeroplanes that is)
Understanding the performance envelope is more possible with good hands on experience. Achieving this in the 80's on needles & dials a/c around the Greek islands was the norm and very enjoyable. I can't remember too many prangs in that enviroment and era.
I still thnik the pax expect us to be able to save the day when windows 69 takes a dislike to events and wants a day off. We should expect a major uproar if an accident report says 'george' crashed the a/c because the pilots let it. Ah, but then that has already happened, hasn't it, and where is the lasting uproar not only from pax but from CAA's? Decayed very quickly after every event.
How to achieve the level of handling skills from the past?...I don't know. It wasn't only the handling skills that were better, it was the ability to assimilate a lolt of information AND fly the a/c manually. You had only a DME, a needle and an altimeter to execute a CDA; and sometimes not even a DME. The ability to create a mental picture of where you were in 4 dimensions was necessary. It is not any longer. The MAP and VNAV makes it so easy, but still situational awareness is not as good as it should be. Take away the VNAV bug and look out of the window to fly a visual would be a No No for some pilots. It is considered almost dangerous to fly an approach with no G.P guidance, and sometimes not allowed at night. What ever happened to basic Mk.1 eyeball flying? Handling skills is one thing, but assessing a correct G.P should be as natural as knowing where the wind is coming from to a sailor. I see too many F/O's flying the F.D down to minima and beyond on a clear day. They have not been instilled with, 'set a sensible power, set a correct attitude, trim it, and then guide it gently, with fine corrections down to the TDZ by looking at the crash point and keeping that in the same place of the window. With so much head-in flying, assessing a correct G.P. is difficult to learn in the first place.
1 hour sim per year is not enough to learn these skills. Real life is the only way, but I understand fully why C.P's are reluctant to encourage daily piloting. They are answerable to the safety and financial people, and ulitmately so are we.
Difficult to find a solution to all our frustrations. Imagine you are in the C.P's shoes. What would you, exactly? Would you 'take the risk', or take the path of least risk as your bosses see it? I'm told that the arrival of bright sunny days also brings the increase in high energy approaches and gate busts. It is very sad, but the C.P's have an obligation to find a short-term solution. Automatics to full approaches or not too much of a short cut for a visual. The longterm solution to piloting skills will take a long time to find and enact. All C.P's have their own opinion. A coordinated response will only come via coordinated CAA's demanding some requirements, and I doubt that will happen.
I've never been to any 'training conferences', but I wonder what topics are discussed there and what conclusions were drawn and philosophies adopted. Can anyone help us with some insight?
Keep the blue side up.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and it does seem that various authorities have realised this may be the case.
The occasional crash here and there (even with the usual short lived media interest) killing a few hundred passengers a year, is probably statistically insignificant when compared to the number of aircraft flying at any one time of day around the world.
The Turkish Airlines B737 crash at Amsterdam made zero news among the aviation fraternity in Australia. The Bournemouth 737 close shave was read by Pprune readers but I doubt if operators learned from that shemozzle. Other typical loss of control crashes such as Flash Air, Adam Air and a host of "overseas" crashes over the past ten years stirred no interest at all with the Australian regulator nor probably the Taiwanese, Malaysian, New Zealand Indonesian or Chinese either -to name but a few
Regulators (bureaucrats, which may include long retired former pilots) may well have legislative authority to change engineering type issues of airworthiness interest, but very rarely do they venture into the sharp end of flying competency with any vigour. There is a plethora of articles on the doom and gloom attached to pure flying skills v automation complacency. But are regulators looking at these with serious interest? The answer is not really.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 809
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely agree. And the problem is willingly not understood by the young generation of pilots. Their upgrade is measured in years in the seat or seniority. Many would should in their own foot if they made good flying skills a mandatory requirement for captaincy in any commercial aircraft.
BB-
Agree entirely; Complacency-The biggest Killer. Which is why we are supposed to fight like crazy against it. As for laziness, one would hope that, in our profession, this would be stamped on pretty sharpish by the "system". If not, then there would be something seriously wrong with the safety culture of that particular organisation.
With regard to "hand flying", what exactly are we talking about here? Fly straight and level if necessary; max of 30 degrees bank turn to intercept the localiser, fly down the glideslope (ILS or PAPI) and land. Not exactly difficult, (it's not night ground attack!), and with regard to final approach and landing, we all do this (I hope) manually day in day out when conditions allow, which is 99% of the time. We leave Mr Autopilot to take care of the really hard stuff, such as Cat 3 business. In the sim, we practice what to do if he doesn't perform as advertised,(rarely), and we have to do it right, or else we don't get signed off. So what is the problem?
despegue:
"Routinely" handfly the a/c without the FD? "MUST" be able to fly a raw data approach? An admirable wish list, and in my earlier comments, I did state that this should be an essential part of simulator training. Indeed, we all obtained our instrument ratings in the first place by proving we were up to this particular task.
But the question is-put your hand on your heart and tell me-are you up to this particular task day in, day out, not just on the nice sunny days but also at the end of a long night slog. The answer is -obviously not. Nobody is advocating being a "willing slave to automation", just the exercise of a little common sense. Lets stop trying to reinvent the wheel and go back to the bad old days of autocratic Captains, non-existent CRM and high accident rates. Automation is here to stay. We should be grateful to our engineering colleagues and to other enlightened members of the aviation profession.
"To thine own self be true".
I think excessive use of autos breeds:
Laziness.
Complacency
Laziness.
Complacency
With regard to "hand flying", what exactly are we talking about here? Fly straight and level if necessary; max of 30 degrees bank turn to intercept the localiser, fly down the glideslope (ILS or PAPI) and land. Not exactly difficult, (it's not night ground attack!), and with regard to final approach and landing, we all do this (I hope) manually day in day out when conditions allow, which is 99% of the time. We leave Mr Autopilot to take care of the really hard stuff, such as Cat 3 business. In the sim, we practice what to do if he doesn't perform as advertised,(rarely), and we have to do it right, or else we don't get signed off. So what is the problem?
despegue:
Any pilot who does not routinely handfly the aircraft WITHOUT the F/D has no place on the flightdeck. And I surely do not want myself or my family subjected to his/hers flying "skills" should the need arise to prove them.
Any Airline that forbids raw-data flying should have its AOC revoked for serious breaches in training and safety and the idiots making these rules should be fired on the spot.
Voila, again a very stern view by me to counter some of these computer geeks wanting the aura of being a pilot but being in reality a willing slave of automation without any spine, gut or responsability towards its proficiency and as a result a danger in the air.
You MUST be able to fly a raw-date approach on-speed, on-glide and SMOOTHLY or what are you doing in the cockpit anyhow?! It is the BASIC of being a pilot, the thing they taught you the very first flying lesson.
Any Airline that forbids raw-data flying should have its AOC revoked for serious breaches in training and safety and the idiots making these rules should be fired on the spot.
Voila, again a very stern view by me to counter some of these computer geeks wanting the aura of being a pilot but being in reality a willing slave of automation without any spine, gut or responsability towards its proficiency and as a result a danger in the air.
You MUST be able to fly a raw-date approach on-speed, on-glide and SMOOTHLY or what are you doing in the cockpit anyhow?! It is the BASIC of being a pilot, the thing they taught you the very first flying lesson.
But the question is-put your hand on your heart and tell me-are you up to this particular task day in, day out, not just on the nice sunny days but also at the end of a long night slog. The answer is -obviously not. Nobody is advocating being a "willing slave to automation", just the exercise of a little common sense. Lets stop trying to reinvent the wheel and go back to the bad old days of autocratic Captains, non-existent CRM and high accident rates. Automation is here to stay. We should be grateful to our engineering colleagues and to other enlightened members of the aviation profession.
"To thine own self be true".
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And don't forget, the automatics have limitations. The aeroplane has greater wind limts than an autoland. When it's nasty; cross wind, tailwind, possible windshear or very turbulent, then the trusty pilot will have to earn their crust. Will they all be able to long into the future? It will be a sorry state where pilot handling limits are limited to the same as autolands due to lack of practice and safety scares, but it could happen. It will be a sad day when diversions due to crosswinds outside pilot limits happens.
How do the charter pilots feel about their new recruit standards? Airlines still fly into Calvi, Samos, Kos, Corfu, Heraklion, and numerous other worldwide testing non-ILS runways. Some maybe captain only landings, but the future captains are today's F/O's. Sounds obvious, but the extra stipe doesn't turn you instantly into a better handler.
How do the charter pilots feel about their new recruit standards? Airlines still fly into Calvi, Samos, Kos, Corfu, Heraklion, and numerous other worldwide testing non-ILS runways. Some maybe captain only landings, but the future captains are today's F/O's. Sounds obvious, but the extra stipe doesn't turn you instantly into a better handler.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Durham
Age: 62
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squid
I hear ya.
Some threads are very insightful and this is one. The essences of such threads do transcend professions or disciplines. To distil this one
into a single question is - At what point does automation cease to be a benefit and actually detracts from human performance? Kipling wrote a suitable and very accurate poem about such a dilemma.
As for other posts, I must say, I have no problem with it being pulled. In retrospect it could have been much better phrased. But call me old fashioned because rudeness I will not tolerate.
I hear ya.
Some threads are very insightful and this is one. The essences of such threads do transcend professions or disciplines. To distil this one
into a single question is - At what point does automation cease to be a benefit and actually detracts from human performance? Kipling wrote a suitable and very accurate poem about such a dilemma.
As for other posts, I must say, I have no problem with it being pulled. In retrospect it could have been much better phrased. But call me old fashioned because rudeness I will not tolerate.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fully respect the benefits of automation. I also respect the benefits of technology. I advocate what I call Human Performance Augmentation, as opposed to human substitution. Give me GPWS, so I have an "aracnid sense" of ground dangerously close. Give me TCAS, so I can "see" airplanes miles away and know their relative position, altitude and rate, and how to avoid crashing into one. Give me an ND and RNAV capability so I know my position and the relative positions of runways, navaids, routes, etc... with just a glance. Give me a stall warning (or FBW envelope protections) so I won't stal nor exceed any limitations.
Give me anything thant makes me better, more capable, more powerful. Enhance me, don't substitute me. Because I am valuable piece of biological technology (which took millions of years to be designed ) that makes all the others twice as much powerful.
Give me automation to be able to maintain a perfect situational awareness even in the most demanding circumstances. But don't make me unable to cope safely enough with the same situation should the need arise. Don't degrade my brain (the "hand" part of hand flying is in fact brain). Keep it fit.
If hand flying skills are allowed to be degraded (and they are, if all you practice is one hand flown approach in the sim every six months) for the sake of supposed better safety by means of AP only flight, then MAY DAY should be transmitted in case of an automation failure in flight.
Same as in case of a crewmember incapacitation.
And MEL should say NO GO for any autoflight item u/s.
Throwing away handling skills and relying exclusively in automation is an error. Automation is one of the greatest inventions in aviation, but must be used by a skilled hand flyer to be totally safe. Otherwise a large part of that potential high safety is lost.
It is not so difficult. Just a few approaches every month, and a few take offs too, when circumstances are good. Hand flying when it doesn't compromise safety improves overall safety.
CAT III ops are very complex landings. So we have to practice in sims. But manually flown approaches can also be needed, so why shouldn't they be practiced as well? however, a monitoring skill needs less practice than an acting skill. In CAT III all you need to do, is monitor that everything is OK and intervene only if something is wrong. But you have to carry out a manual approach yourself. It requires much more practice, and more recurrently.
Give me anything thant makes me better, more capable, more powerful. Enhance me, don't substitute me. Because I am valuable piece of biological technology (which took millions of years to be designed ) that makes all the others twice as much powerful.
Give me automation to be able to maintain a perfect situational awareness even in the most demanding circumstances. But don't make me unable to cope safely enough with the same situation should the need arise. Don't degrade my brain (the "hand" part of hand flying is in fact brain). Keep it fit.
If hand flying skills are allowed to be degraded (and they are, if all you practice is one hand flown approach in the sim every six months) for the sake of supposed better safety by means of AP only flight, then MAY DAY should be transmitted in case of an automation failure in flight.
Same as in case of a crewmember incapacitation.
And MEL should say NO GO for any autoflight item u/s.
Throwing away handling skills and relying exclusively in automation is an error. Automation is one of the greatest inventions in aviation, but must be used by a skilled hand flyer to be totally safe. Otherwise a large part of that potential high safety is lost.
It is not so difficult. Just a few approaches every month, and a few take offs too, when circumstances are good. Hand flying when it doesn't compromise safety improves overall safety.
CAT III ops are very complex landings. So we have to practice in sims. But manually flown approaches can also be needed, so why shouldn't they be practiced as well? however, a monitoring skill needs less practice than an acting skill. In CAT III all you need to do, is monitor that everything is OK and intervene only if something is wrong. But you have to carry out a manual approach yourself. It requires much more practice, and more recurrently.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the question is-put your hand on your heart and tell me-are you up to this particular task day in, day out, not just on the nice sunny days but also at the end of a long night slog. The answer is -obviously not.
A few weeks later an invitation to tea and bikkies arrived from the chief pilot of the airline. A pleasant kindly chap he asked me to desist from hand flying unless necessary, because the first officers of his airline were not trained to monitor raw data navigation aid flying - only automatics.
Clearly hands on flying is inappropriate at certain times - maybe because of weather or a complex terminal area. But here we had relatively straight forward departure and arrival procedures which obviously scared the automation bred first officers who lacked basic instrument flying skills.
And these 500 hour wonders were second in command of 150 passenger airliners. Aft of the flight deck door, the cabin crew and passengers would have been totally convinced that the two blokes up front were two highly experienced pilots able to save their lives from any imaginable emergency. Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise..
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, someday soon, whenever the automatics are off, one must declare an emergency...perhaps even be escorted by air force fighters?
Bravo to all of you who ''keep your hand in". My process was to hand fly to cruise...trim up and then engage the autopilot...the test was if the autopilot had to retrim!
Also hand flew the descent from TOD to touchdown. Mind you, hand flying for hours in level flight can be fatiguing (God Bless you Charles Lindbergh)but my ''runs'' were all of the up and down along the ''shuttle'' routes of the US East coast.
I never cared for the flight director, but as required by regulation for approaches and takeoff (for cues for engine out pitch)...but I always felt that turning it off would be just fine.
And quite frankly, I don't feel the airbus is ever flown by hand...even with the sidestick.
Bravo to all of you who ''keep your hand in". My process was to hand fly to cruise...trim up and then engage the autopilot...the test was if the autopilot had to retrim!
Also hand flew the descent from TOD to touchdown. Mind you, hand flying for hours in level flight can be fatiguing (God Bless you Charles Lindbergh)but my ''runs'' were all of the up and down along the ''shuttle'' routes of the US East coast.
I never cared for the flight director, but as required by regulation for approaches and takeoff (for cues for engine out pitch)...but I always felt that turning it off would be just fine.
And quite frankly, I don't feel the airbus is ever flown by hand...even with the sidestick.
PTH;
Interesting. I never really liked the flight director either. Not that they weren't good but I preferred to "look through" the FD to the raw data on the ADI/PFD etc to make my own adjustments when hand-flying. Sometimes the FD would lead what I was flying and sometimes it would lag, (always in short-term situations, bear in mind); the key is not in slavish adherence to what the FD was commanding but flying the airplane first. The two always caught up with one another! The other method was to simply turn the FD off which is what Airbus recommends if you're not going to "follow the FD". I expect to be taken to task by some for espousing the notion of "ignoring the FD" but that's not what the "cognition" was - it was permitting the FD to "ride on top of awareness while looking behind it to the raw data" at what the airplane was actually doing, maintaining a keen SA and flying the machine. It can't be taught nor should it be; it comes from time in.
I never cared for the flight director
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: alameda
Posts: 1,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PJ2
glad to see we agree on the flight director business.
One thing I did like to do, when I was the PNF, I would set the FD to pitch for level flight cruise. That way, if the fecal matter hit the oscillating ventilator, I would have something to aim for.
The FD was required by company procedure for takeoff and by FAR for low vis landing...so I used it...the single cue is much better than the two cue/cross hair in my mind.
But if they threw it all out of the plane, I was still good to go in my mind. I looked "through" it too ...especially the two cue cross hair.
atb
glad to see we agree on the flight director business.
One thing I did like to do, when I was the PNF, I would set the FD to pitch for level flight cruise. That way, if the fecal matter hit the oscillating ventilator, I would have something to aim for.
The FD was required by company procedure for takeoff and by FAR for low vis landing...so I used it...the single cue is much better than the two cue/cross hair in my mind.
But if they threw it all out of the plane, I was still good to go in my mind. I looked "through" it too ...especially the two cue cross hair.
atb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re 'Flight Director'.
I'm really used to the FD these days. It's a valuable tool in a lot of ways. One of which is that as it showsthe ideal flightpath, if you're handflying, it shows your deviation from same.
When I started (on Loganair Shorts SD-360) most of our a/c had no FD or autopilot , or nothing.
Yet we still had to hack a CAT 1 ILS to mins and did so all the time..
My handflying then was **** hot.
Recently, going into Nice, the autos and FD both went off. Took me a few swerves to get the ILS going properly.
I was a bit ashamed of myself when we'd landed off the same 'raw data' ILS that I used to do 'day in and out' on the shed.
Use it, or lose it.
I'm really used to the FD these days. It's a valuable tool in a lot of ways. One of which is that as it showsthe ideal flightpath, if you're handflying, it shows your deviation from same.
When I started (on Loganair Shorts SD-360) most of our a/c had no FD or autopilot , or nothing.
Yet we still had to hack a CAT 1 ILS to mins and did so all the time..
My handflying then was **** hot.
Recently, going into Nice, the autos and FD both went off. Took me a few swerves to get the ILS going properly.
I was a bit ashamed of myself when we'd landed off the same 'raw data' ILS that I used to do 'day in and out' on the shed.
Use it, or lose it.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BB
What do you fly and what was the cause of the AP and FD failure?
Just want to get a full picture of your example and that you are not using it as a way of trying to "back up" your argument.
protectthehornet
What do you fly these days? The airbus does hand-fly nicely by the way, don't be biased. I agree you have to look through the FD to learn the attitudes, however you tend to blow your arguments when you add your "own: way of doing things.
Separate FD's on different modes?
Guys this is not a willie waving contest!
What do you fly and what was the cause of the AP and FD failure?
Just want to get a full picture of your example and that you are not using it as a way of trying to "back up" your argument.
protectthehornet
What do you fly these days? The airbus does hand-fly nicely by the way, don't be biased. I agree you have to look through the FD to learn the attitudes, however you tend to blow your arguments when you add your "own: way of doing things.
One thing I did like to do, when I was the PNF, I would set the FD to pitch for level flight cruise.
Guys this is not a willie waving contest!
Guest
Posts: n/a
PTH / Iceman
I fly the BAe RJ 100. Its a 112 seat British, 4 jet marvel.
The reason for the failure was that Nice were using their ILS on 04L(normally they use their elegant 'Riviera' proc, but thats another story).
The GS failed. So the AP and FD went off. (the G/S at NCE does this a lot and they went to VOR/DME apps after us).
As we were humming along in full auto mode, on our last vector to intercept the ILS, and as it happened at that critical moment, one had to grab the plane, pick a heading etc etc.
It just reminded me of how my skills have been wasted by years of FD and A/P flight.
And I'M one of guys who hand flys a lot.
What are the others like?
I fly the BAe RJ 100. Its a 112 seat British, 4 jet marvel.
The reason for the failure was that Nice were using their ILS on 04L(normally they use their elegant 'Riviera' proc, but thats another story).
The GS failed. So the AP and FD went off. (the G/S at NCE does this a lot and they went to VOR/DME apps after us).
As we were humming along in full auto mode, on our last vector to intercept the ILS, and as it happened at that critical moment, one had to grab the plane, pick a heading etc etc.
It just reminded me of how my skills have been wasted by years of FD and A/P flight.
And I'M one of guys who hand flys a lot.
What are the others like?