Pilot handling skills under threat, says Airbus
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Handling Skills under Threat
I am glad that my Career included much hand flying and using the then state of the art autopilot / Flight Director systems.
To hand fly from take-off to the top of climb, then cruise at 0.8 Mach and FL 450 ( on the autopilot) and the manual descent to land gave a good feeling that you had made the grade. The ride for the passengers was equal to or better than when on the autopilot.
I feel that some of the current group of pilots may be missing some of this enjoyment.
My suggestion is to take every opportunity to practice your hand flying skills and as well use the present day Automatics System to the best of it's ability.
Tmb
To hand fly from take-off to the top of climb, then cruise at 0.8 Mach and FL 450 ( on the autopilot) and the manual descent to land gave a good feeling that you had made the grade. The ride for the passengers was equal to or better than when on the autopilot.
I feel that some of the current group of pilots may be missing some of this enjoyment.
My suggestion is to take every opportunity to practice your hand flying skills and as well use the present day Automatics System to the best of it's ability.
Tmb
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: PARIS FRANCE
Age: 77
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I qualified on the A320, my instructors told me : if you switch off everything, you have a C47 in your hands…Very nice to hear, but I had flown the C47 in the seventies, and I did not agree with them. Even without AP, autothrust, Fds, the airbus remains a very special plane. Autotrimmed all the time, flying a load factor, which means that once you have established it on the ILS with, say, 54% N1, you can fold your arms and watch it appraoch peacefully, muttering « I don’t need you my friend, I don’t need you »…As for the flare, you are still giving electrical impulses to a box which takes into account the radio height, the load factor etc…to enable you to move the stick back while it moves tne elavator down, so that you believe you are flaring it…You never fly that plane, it flies you. Very well, I must say.
Psychophysiological entity
Well, that's a good question.
If...just if, a group of airlines established a fleet of shared aircraft to practice difficult maneuvers in, I have a gut feeling that there are a lot of today's pilots that would be very uncomfortable with some of the demands made on them.
If...just if, a group of airlines established a fleet of shared aircraft to practice difficult maneuvers in, I have a gut feeling that there are a lot of today's pilots that would be very uncomfortable with some of the demands made on them.
I have so far resisted responding to this thread but I am now goaded into commenting. Those of you who have been on pprune for some years will know that I have always been in favour of all pilots keeping up their hand flying skills. I always managed to do so for 46 years of professional flying (RAF & Commercial) despite the "naysayers" who would have you believe that the poor old PNF will become overloaded in an a busy ATC environment (whatever are they going to do in a real emergency)?
I have only one question to ask all of you out there.
What exactly does your MEL say about you despatching with all of your nice comfort zone automatics deferred?
Go on, really look at your MEL.
If it says, for example, that you may despatch with no auto pilot and no flight directors, would you be able and comfortable to continue with this situation? If not, then why not? If you feel that you cannot operate to this level of redundancy then you are clearly out of proper flying practice. If the reason that you are out of practice is because the management insists on auto flight at all times then refuse to accept the constrictions of the MEL.
I was once invited to fly a DC-10 from LGW to LAX with no autopilots. We, the crew, looked in the MEL, had a conference, and got on with it. It was not difficult (nowadays it would not be a realistic possibility because of RVSM restrictions).
Not long before I retired, I was confronted with a 5-sector adventure sans autopilot and flight directors etc (which the MEL said was acceptable). I was supposed to be training a brand new F/O and the weather was less than wonderful. I told the despatchers that we could either change the F/O (it would not have done him any good) or else we changed the aeroplane.
An experienced F/O was called out and we got the job done.
LOOK AT YOUR MEL MOST CAREFULLY AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF YOU REALLY WOULD BE HAPPY TO FLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF NOT, THEN ASK THE MANAGEMENT FOR FURTHER TRAINING OR ELSE CHANGE THE MEL.
P.S. Believe me, at no time in my career would any of the SLF even have have suspected that I was hand flying. I was always taught to imagine that if I got the slightest bit rough then 350 gin and tonics would end up in the roof and that the girls would never speak to me again. No gin and tonics ever hit the roof and I married one of the girls!
I have only one question to ask all of you out there.
What exactly does your MEL say about you despatching with all of your nice comfort zone automatics deferred?
Go on, really look at your MEL.
If it says, for example, that you may despatch with no auto pilot and no flight directors, would you be able and comfortable to continue with this situation? If not, then why not? If you feel that you cannot operate to this level of redundancy then you are clearly out of proper flying practice. If the reason that you are out of practice is because the management insists on auto flight at all times then refuse to accept the constrictions of the MEL.
I was once invited to fly a DC-10 from LGW to LAX with no autopilots. We, the crew, looked in the MEL, had a conference, and got on with it. It was not difficult (nowadays it would not be a realistic possibility because of RVSM restrictions).
Not long before I retired, I was confronted with a 5-sector adventure sans autopilot and flight directors etc (which the MEL said was acceptable). I was supposed to be training a brand new F/O and the weather was less than wonderful. I told the despatchers that we could either change the F/O (it would not have done him any good) or else we changed the aeroplane.
An experienced F/O was called out and we got the job done.
LOOK AT YOUR MEL MOST CAREFULLY AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF YOU REALLY WOULD BE HAPPY TO FLY IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, IF NOT, THEN ASK THE MANAGEMENT FOR FURTHER TRAINING OR ELSE CHANGE THE MEL.
P.S. Believe me, at no time in my career would any of the SLF even have have suspected that I was hand flying. I was always taught to imagine that if I got the slightest bit rough then 350 gin and tonics would end up in the roof and that the girls would never speak to me again. No gin and tonics ever hit the roof and I married one of the girls!
Last edited by JW411; 14th Sep 2009 at 16:49.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with you
I guess that "do not hand fly" airlines should have no AP as a NO GO if they are consistent with their own policy.
Every time I can, I hand fly (blank FMA). I have even made a few fully hand flown flights in the 320, from lift off to touch down, cruise included (below RVSM of course) and a complete VORDME letdown procedure including a DME arc. Or sometimes ending with a visual. I loved every minute of those flights,
but it is difficult to convince the other pilot. Many do not mind to make a hand flown approach, but most don't like taking off without FD (it can be tricky, that is the truth).
I heard that some 320 airlines encourage no FD take offs. I'd love mine was one ot those.
I guess that "do not hand fly" airlines should have no AP as a NO GO if they are consistent with their own policy.
Every time I can, I hand fly (blank FMA). I have even made a few fully hand flown flights in the 320, from lift off to touch down, cruise included (below RVSM of course) and a complete VORDME letdown procedure including a DME arc. Or sometimes ending with a visual. I loved every minute of those flights,
but it is difficult to convince the other pilot. Many do not mind to make a hand flown approach, but most don't like taking off without FD (it can be tricky, that is the truth).I heard that some 320 airlines encourage no FD take offs. I'd love mine was one ot those.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some years ago I dispatched with (dare I say it? 'just') the autothrottle u/s (A300-300). Everything else on the aircraft was working, including the auto pilot. My FO was an ex-cadet and on the first sector, (DXB-AUH, a distance of only 70 nm), it was his sector.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that for me, it quickly became something approaching a pre-solo instructional ride. (I have done many such rides, if in aircraft considerably less complex than an A300.) He was totally overwhelmed - just by having to move the thrust levers himself whenever he did anything else. For instance, on descent, he could not understand that winding back the rate of descent on the V/S knob was not enough to slow the RoD and maintain airspeed. Just couldn't see it. Nor could he understand that pushing the thrust levers forward would reduce the RoD if he commanded a particular airspeed on the autoflight system.
On the second sector, (mine - AUH-LGW), we talked at length about what I was doing to maintain the flight path using the thrust levers in concert with the autoflight system. I had the distinct feeling that all that I said was met with glazed eyes and the attitude that why should he bother? It was never going to happen to him again.
That flight brought home to me very clearly how quickly the whole operation can go off the rails with just the most simple systems malfunction with a crew who have been trained from the start to use full automated flight without a clear understanding of the basics - and how to operate the basics.
The US Navy maintains that carrier landings involve a highly developed skill set that will be lost unless it is constantly practised, to the point where they stop paying pilots the extra pay loading this skill attracts if they don't maintain their recency. Flying a modern airliner is considerably more simple and less demanding than landing a high performance jet onto an aircraft carrier. However, the same rule applies - if you don't practise the skills you may one day require, you'll lose them.
And if, as a younger pilot, your airline policy prevents you from ever developing those skills (apart from a 'dip your toes in the water' moment when you do it in carefully controlled conditions once every six or twelve months (if that frequently!) in the simulator), how can you be expected to deliver the goods if you require those skills in less than ideal conditions? We've had a few examples of this lately - for example, the one that seems to have confronted the Air France A330 crew out of (was it?) Rio and the turboprop at Buffalo.
It would not be an exaggeration to say that for me, it quickly became something approaching a pre-solo instructional ride. (I have done many such rides, if in aircraft considerably less complex than an A300.) He was totally overwhelmed - just by having to move the thrust levers himself whenever he did anything else. For instance, on descent, he could not understand that winding back the rate of descent on the V/S knob was not enough to slow the RoD and maintain airspeed. Just couldn't see it. Nor could he understand that pushing the thrust levers forward would reduce the RoD if he commanded a particular airspeed on the autoflight system.
On the second sector, (mine - AUH-LGW), we talked at length about what I was doing to maintain the flight path using the thrust levers in concert with the autoflight system. I had the distinct feeling that all that I said was met with glazed eyes and the attitude that why should he bother? It was never going to happen to him again.
That flight brought home to me very clearly how quickly the whole operation can go off the rails with just the most simple systems malfunction with a crew who have been trained from the start to use full automated flight without a clear understanding of the basics - and how to operate the basics.
The US Navy maintains that carrier landings involve a highly developed skill set that will be lost unless it is constantly practised, to the point where they stop paying pilots the extra pay loading this skill attracts if they don't maintain their recency. Flying a modern airliner is considerably more simple and less demanding than landing a high performance jet onto an aircraft carrier. However, the same rule applies - if you don't practise the skills you may one day require, you'll lose them.
And if, as a younger pilot, your airline policy prevents you from ever developing those skills (apart from a 'dip your toes in the water' moment when you do it in carefully controlled conditions once every six or twelve months (if that frequently!) in the simulator), how can you be expected to deliver the goods if you require those skills in less than ideal conditions? We've had a few examples of this lately - for example, the one that seems to have confronted the Air France A330 crew out of (was it?) Rio and the turboprop at Buffalo.
These days the technology of the automatics is reasonably mature and reliable. The flight engineer is almost extinct. Prehaps the next generation or the one after, of pilots will be automatics only operators and the MEL will reflect this. ie autothrust, FDs, autopilot will be no go items.
The environment we operate in has changed considerably over the years, drawing lines from beacons on a map isn't applicable to RVSM airspace. Yesterday I pointed out to a flight attendent an aircraft crossing our track 1000' below at a reporting point. Because our positions were so accurate, had we been at the same level we would have collided.
A old captain I had the pleasure to fly with many years ago remembered when the VOR was new technology.
Crusty old pilots who can actally FLY an aircraft could become a memory. Worldwide ETOPS is now routine, we think nothing of being three hours from an airport in a twin jet such is the reliability of modern engines, a sixty plus year old technology.
As automatics become increasingly reliable they will be depended on more and more. The newer generations of pilots who trained on automatics will replace the previous generations who remember when automatics were less reliable, didn't trust them totally and actually practised flying without them.
The day will probably come when a pilot recieves an award for heroically landing his aircraft when a 1 in 100 000 000 failure occurs and the automatics are lost.
The environment we operate in has changed considerably over the years, drawing lines from beacons on a map isn't applicable to RVSM airspace. Yesterday I pointed out to a flight attendent an aircraft crossing our track 1000' below at a reporting point. Because our positions were so accurate, had we been at the same level we would have collided.
A old captain I had the pleasure to fly with many years ago remembered when the VOR was new technology.
Crusty old pilots who can actally FLY an aircraft could become a memory. Worldwide ETOPS is now routine, we think nothing of being three hours from an airport in a twin jet such is the reliability of modern engines, a sixty plus year old technology.
As automatics become increasingly reliable they will be depended on more and more. The newer generations of pilots who trained on automatics will replace the previous generations who remember when automatics were less reliable, didn't trust them totally and actually practised flying without them.
The day will probably come when a pilot recieves an award for heroically landing his aircraft when a 1 in 100 000 000 failure occurs and the automatics are lost.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 78
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post by Arthur Norman Fletcher, who put it all in one coherent statement.
Qoute:At the risk of turning this into a Boeing/Airbus thread, it is worth mentioning a few salient points. The Airbus has to be considered as a box of tools - there is a tool for just about every occasion in the locker. The problem for many Airbus pilots is that they only use a few of those tools nearly all the time. Such skills as manual flying are often neglected. My personal philosophy is that at least once a week or so, I switch the autopilot, autothrust and flight directors off and do a raw data approach to minimums. It is hard work as raw data instrument flying is a perishable skill which significantly decays through lack of use. If you are not careful you end up losing key abilities that you had in your early years. To be a good Airbus pilot undoubtedly requires a solid grasp of the numerous flight guidance modes, but it also requires the ability to switch the whole lot off should the need arise. I personally encourage low-houred Airbus pilots who have become familiar with the Airbus over say the last year to stretch themselves and periodically switch off the automatics - weather and ATC environment permitting.
This is not just an Airbus problem but a problem related to all new aircraft types (B777, B787, A380 etc, etc). Increasingly we as pilots are becoming systems managers - and it is absolutely vital we have a full grasp of those systems. Nonetheless, it is also imperative the basic handling skill are not allowed to erode. All the 'stick and rudder' men may despise the realities of modern aviation - they alas need to embrace the new skill set required of them. Equally a whole generation of Airbus pilots need to ensure their systems management capabilities, good as they may be, are not maintained at the expense of basic flying skills.
Qoute:At the risk of turning this into a Boeing/Airbus thread, it is worth mentioning a few salient points. The Airbus has to be considered as a box of tools - there is a tool for just about every occasion in the locker. The problem for many Airbus pilots is that they only use a few of those tools nearly all the time. Such skills as manual flying are often neglected. My personal philosophy is that at least once a week or so, I switch the autopilot, autothrust and flight directors off and do a raw data approach to minimums. It is hard work as raw data instrument flying is a perishable skill which significantly decays through lack of use. If you are not careful you end up losing key abilities that you had in your early years. To be a good Airbus pilot undoubtedly requires a solid grasp of the numerous flight guidance modes, but it also requires the ability to switch the whole lot off should the need arise. I personally encourage low-houred Airbus pilots who have become familiar with the Airbus over say the last year to stretch themselves and periodically switch off the automatics - weather and ATC environment permitting.
This is not just an Airbus problem but a problem related to all new aircraft types (B777, B787, A380 etc, etc). Increasingly we as pilots are becoming systems managers - and it is absolutely vital we have a full grasp of those systems. Nonetheless, it is also imperative the basic handling skill are not allowed to erode. All the 'stick and rudder' men may despise the realities of modern aviation - they alas need to embrace the new skill set required of them. Equally a whole generation of Airbus pilots need to ensure their systems management capabilities, good as they may be, are not maintained at the expense of basic flying skills.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Metro man
If the MMEL was like that (NO GO for AP, FD or A/THR U/S) that would mean that when they were serviceable It would be extremely unlikely that any of them was lost during any given flight.
But it would also mean that the Pilots would not be considered a redundant element in an airplane's control anymore.
As said in a previous post, if an airline does not trust its pilots it should put NO GO in its MEL for automation U/S, but if the NO GO is in a manufacturer's MMEL, then it is the industry which is not trusting pilots anymore.
This can easily happen if new generation pilots are more and more poorly trained to fly.
If the MMEL was like that (NO GO for AP, FD or A/THR U/S) that would mean that when they were serviceable It would be extremely unlikely that any of them was lost during any given flight.
But it would also mean that the Pilots would not be considered a redundant element in an airplane's control anymore.
As said in a previous post, if an airline does not trust its pilots it should put NO GO in its MEL for automation U/S, but if the NO GO is in a manufacturer's MMEL, then it is the industry which is not trusting pilots anymore.
This can easily happen if new generation pilots are more and more poorly trained to fly.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dorset
Age: 52
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Build it into the system
If the planes are so smart, it can't be too hard (well, alright, yes it can be hard - but not impossible) to update the software to identify the PF and crew on a flight, and choose a set number of minutes per flight for manual control at set events (course changes, approach, simulated technical issues, etc).
This all gets logged in the crew database and gets added as manual flying credits/sim hours of which there is a union/crew manager-agreed minimum per year.
As with movie nuke crews, the "this is a simulation" alert is played before any of those "issues", which will cancel if something real does happen. So, we don't get confusion over real events and the crews gain live experience which counts to metrics/targets - win/win.
Just my 2€ worth
This all gets logged in the crew database and gets added as manual flying credits/sim hours of which there is a union/crew manager-agreed minimum per year.
As with movie nuke crews, the "this is a simulation" alert is played before any of those "issues", which will cancel if something real does happen. So, we don't get confusion over real events and the crews gain live experience which counts to metrics/targets - win/win.
Just my 2€ worth
Goffee
And if we provide the correct response do we get peanuts dispensed to us 
or if we get it wrong do we get an electric shock 
Nope, I ( and I suspect most people here, and I suspect the regulatory authorities ) do not want the machine at some arbitrary point in the flight ( when we might be up to our ears resolving non-technical issues), deciding to blank displays or fail the autothrottle or similar so I can do some manual flying...as for course changes, ATC already throw those at us evey time we fly.
Leave that sort of "gaming" for the sim...
or if we get it wrong do we get an electric shock Nope, I ( and I suspect most people here, and I suspect the regulatory authorities ) do not want the machine at some arbitrary point in the flight ( when we might be up to our ears resolving non-technical issues), deciding to blank displays or fail the autothrottle or similar so I can do some manual flying...as for course changes, ATC already throw those at us evey time we fly.
Leave that sort of "gaming" for the sim...
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Still looking
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A legal side
Our company accepts that flying with automatics out is required to maintain basic skills but appears unwilling to support the pilots in this. My assumption is that they just seem to be absolutely sh..t scared about any legal ramifications resulting from an incident. I have had to learn which guys I fly with are happy to let me turn the lot off and those of which are not. The look of death I've had from a few at the suggestion of turning things off (good conditions, low traffic, radar control, no noise issues) is somewhat telling. Accountants and lawyers both important to an airline but sometimes the pilot groups most dangerous ally!
Guest
Posts: n/a
My 2p worth.
'Loss of control' is the new killer.
Pilots are relying too much on automation- good as it is- and when it does a 'subtle' failure (Turkish at Schipol for example) they sometimes fail to notice.
Also, when the autos roll over completely, the pilots' skill set is often found wanting due to lack of 'autos off' recency. AF447 MAY be an example or the ADAM air if you like.
I, personally, take a great interest in what is in our OPS manual.
Remember though, that the primary purpose of the OPS manual is to absolve management of the blame if the worst should happen. There is plenty of great stuff in the books but it is never a substitute for basic airmanship. We got loads of guys where I work who are utterly ****-hot at reciting stuff out the OPS manuals. But can they fly the plane? Can they F*ck!
The autos are great for reading the paper or eating your lunch. They are an aid to flight, not a crutch to prop up your **** hand flying. I fly with plenty of guys who would be lost (to put it mildly) without the autos.
Fly your aircraft. You might be glad you did some day.
'Loss of control' is the new killer.
Pilots are relying too much on automation- good as it is- and when it does a 'subtle' failure (Turkish at Schipol for example) they sometimes fail to notice.
Also, when the autos roll over completely, the pilots' skill set is often found wanting due to lack of 'autos off' recency. AF447 MAY be an example or the ADAM air if you like.
I, personally, take a great interest in what is in our OPS manual.
Remember though, that the primary purpose of the OPS manual is to absolve management of the blame if the worst should happen. There is plenty of great stuff in the books but it is never a substitute for basic airmanship. We got loads of guys where I work who are utterly ****-hot at reciting stuff out the OPS manuals. But can they fly the plane? Can they F*ck!
The autos are great for reading the paper or eating your lunch. They are an aid to flight, not a crutch to prop up your **** hand flying. I fly with plenty of guys who would be lost (to put it mildly) without the autos.
Fly your aircraft. You might be glad you did some day.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back in 1991 I saw a paragraph in the Germania (?) B737 Company Operations manual which sent shivers down my spine at the time.
It stated: "Only under exceptional circumstances will manual flight be performed."
So this discussion about the need to keep your hand in has been going for at least 18 years and nothing has changed except the accent on full use of automation has steadily increased.
An occasional hand flown raw data ILS (auto-throttle use optional!) during cyclic simulator training sessions cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute "keeping one's hand in on hand flying" Neither can an occasional hand flown ILS following the flight director, do anything to maintain one's pure flying skills.
It stated: "Only under exceptional circumstances will manual flight be performed."
So this discussion about the need to keep your hand in has been going for at least 18 years and nothing has changed except the accent on full use of automation has steadily increased.
An occasional hand flown raw data ILS (auto-throttle use optional!) during cyclic simulator training sessions cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute "keeping one's hand in on hand flying" Neither can an occasional hand flown ILS following the flight director, do anything to maintain one's pure flying skills.
This can easily happen if new generation pilots are more and more poorly trained to fly.
Of the following options which is likely to be cheaper ?
1. Train pilots for, and keep them recent in, rarely needed manual flying skills.
2. Train systems managers to operate automated aircraft.
Remember the arguments going on 20+ years ago about retaining flight engineers ?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Africa
Age: 55
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...butt safe on ground
Personally I think that loosing the capability of being able to put your butt safely on the ground (and in all conditions i.e. 1eng, 2eng, no flap, no gear etc..) cannot be really compared with the situation of going inbound a VOR with raw data or with the FMS?
There is a safety gap in between that costs lot of money called: training!
There is a safety gap in between that costs lot of money called: training!