Latest research on Automation Dependency - Regulator please note..
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Protectthehornet: Heroic pilots do no make headlines.
How right you are in this statement. My suggestion is that Pilots retiring without killing passengers or losing aircraft, should be honourned. I believe this is about Air Safety. Can Pilot Association campaign for such honour to be carried out in Aviation?
How right you are in this statement. My suggestion is that Pilots retiring without killing passengers or losing aircraft, should be honourned. I believe this is about Air Safety. Can Pilot Association campaign for such honour to be carried out in Aviation?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hahn: U are right about flying by hand other than relying entirely on automation. This brings me to a point. I have driven a car manually for several years and now I drive a car using automation. I prefer the former to the latter. Do you know why, I simply relax and let the car go instead of feeling in control by driving manually. I don't know if it is a question of teaching old dogs new tricks. Pardon me I am not rejecting the new technology but that is how I feel when I drive, like I won't be able to stop or something like letting go. By far, one cannot compare this to flying but all the same there is logic in my reference.
Ozy:
Unfortunately not so simple, and that's the problem. In todays aircraft, the autopilot and flight director are all integrated. Both require identical inputs, as they both receive info from the same FCC source (flight control computers). So the PM has to make LNav or Hdg Sel and FLCH or VNav selections as requested by the PF.
It is critical (and SOP) that both of you crosscheck and verbalise these selections before executing, and therein lies the rub. With the PF busy concentrating on his flying and the PM busy doing other tasks (ATC coms, frequency changes, config changes, checklists), it is often easy to miss something, and make the wrong mode selection. I have seen it happen many times.
Today's aircraft do not lend themselves to manual flying as we used to know it. They are not designed to be flown that way as a matter of course. Which is not to say it cannot and should not be done. Of course not. ("Time and place"). But that is why it is recommended to use the automation (i.e PF does his own MCP work) at such busy times to ease the workload and improve x checking & SA (sit awareness) for all concerned.
Ditch the automatics (i.e FD) & fly raw data only? Not really an option in todays RNP airspace. RNAV departures/arrivals demand 99.99% accuracy always. If you are not right on the published lateral and vertical profiles, with associated constraints (if any), you risk violations, with potentially serious consequences. Not worth the risk IMHO.
(p.s the link posted by Maurice Chavez with regard to degraded flying skills does make interesting reading.)
If you're flying manually on raw data then perhaps the MCDU/FMGC can be afforded a lower priority.
It is critical (and SOP) that both of you crosscheck and verbalise these selections before executing, and therein lies the rub. With the PF busy concentrating on his flying and the PM busy doing other tasks (ATC coms, frequency changes, config changes, checklists), it is often easy to miss something, and make the wrong mode selection. I have seen it happen many times.
Today's aircraft do not lend themselves to manual flying as we used to know it. They are not designed to be flown that way as a matter of course. Which is not to say it cannot and should not be done. Of course not. ("Time and place"). But that is why it is recommended to use the automation (i.e PF does his own MCP work) at such busy times to ease the workload and improve x checking & SA (sit awareness) for all concerned.
Ditch the automatics (i.e FD) & fly raw data only? Not really an option in todays RNP airspace. RNAV departures/arrivals demand 99.99% accuracy always. If you are not right on the published lateral and vertical profiles, with associated constraints (if any), you risk violations, with potentially serious consequences. Not worth the risk IMHO.
(p.s the link posted by Maurice Chavez with regard to degraded flying skills does make interesting reading.)
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Near Puget Sound
Age: 86
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just finished renewing my FAA CFI certificate. Over and over the course material emphasized that stick and rudder skills aren't as important any more. It's all decision making.
Now, I'm not opposed to training in making appropriate decisions, but I was dismayed by the downplaying of basic flight skills.
Goldfish
Now, I'm not opposed to training in making appropriate decisions, but I was dismayed by the downplaying of basic flight skills.
Goldfish
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good for you GF. Great to see you are staying in the loop and I am sure you will teach your students the value of basic stick and rudder skills. I let my CFI expire decades ago when I got an airline job but would have the same technique I had then of teaching stick and rudder skills. Good judgement is important but so is knowing how to fly your airplane after you have decided what you are going to do.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: ***
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, i do not agree with the posts above.
In a sim session, I want to be challenged by some hard to solve scenario, not by a handflown ILS.
I will do that on any day, at any airport. Even the busy ones (Europe is my theatre). My personal minimum for an ILS is set to 800' AGL, below that I will leave the FD on. If the ceiling goes below 500', I will let the AP fly it until certain of visual completion.
And if I go to some not so busy field, I will always opt for a visual, if approved and surrounding terrain and obstacles are visible (no fooling around with CAVOK and going into the sun, that would be dangerous). In case visual is not approved or not possible, I will ask for a nonprecision APP. That does not include GPS approaches, as it harldy makes sense to handfly them and they are the most boring piece of flying I know.
I feel that in no way I do endanger my passengers, as a goaround is always an option (and in my company it is not even mentioned, no questions asked, ever, period - for safety!) and I chose the right weather to do those handflown approaches in. And, admit it, when does the weather really call for an autoland/CAT III?
Autoland on a CAT I beam is inherently unsafe, to begin with.
So in a sim session, practicing "no FD" approaches is an utter waste of time. One should always have the ability to fly one.
Nic
In a sim session, I want to be challenged by some hard to solve scenario, not by a handflown ILS.
I will do that on any day, at any airport. Even the busy ones (Europe is my theatre). My personal minimum for an ILS is set to 800' AGL, below that I will leave the FD on. If the ceiling goes below 500', I will let the AP fly it until certain of visual completion.
And if I go to some not so busy field, I will always opt for a visual, if approved and surrounding terrain and obstacles are visible (no fooling around with CAVOK and going into the sun, that would be dangerous). In case visual is not approved or not possible, I will ask for a nonprecision APP. That does not include GPS approaches, as it harldy makes sense to handfly them and they are the most boring piece of flying I know.
I feel that in no way I do endanger my passengers, as a goaround is always an option (and in my company it is not even mentioned, no questions asked, ever, period - for safety!) and I chose the right weather to do those handflown approaches in. And, admit it, when does the weather really call for an autoland/CAT III?
Autoland on a CAT I beam is inherently unsafe, to begin with.
So in a sim session, practicing "no FD" approaches is an utter waste of time. One should always have the ability to fly one.
Nic
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: US
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the US we don't do it that way. We have been doing just fine doing what we have been doing for over 40 years. Cat 3 approaches are almost never done but we can always hand fly a cat 1 approach. The only cat 3 approaches I have done are in the sim. Cat 1 approaches are not very difficult if you have any piloting abilities so why worry about if it is an auto approach or hand flown? Just land the fricken airplane. What is happening is what is expected of a professional pilot?
Last edited by p51guy; 12th Nov 2010 at 01:12.
