" FAA concerned about increase in manual handling errors"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Can't remember
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I absolutely agree that we should all practice manual flight wherever possible. However, it needs to be said that in the modern environment we should be circumspect where we do this. In the early days, if we had a low level altitude capture for example, it didn't matter too much if we overshot by a small margin. Today we can't get away with such errors. I would suggest that if we are in a metric environment such as China and Russia, we absolutely have to engage the autopilot at minimum height. This allows the PM to monitor better and reduces the threat of setting an incorrect value.
If a SID has a low level restriction, perhaps anything less than 3000ft, we should be engaging the autopilot to better manage the level off. Complex RNAV arrivals should also be flown using all automation available.
As one post rightly stated, if you are approaching an island in CAVOK or any airport for that matter, where the weather and traffic is acceptable then we should use the opportunity to practice our hand flying skill.
My point is that I agree with all the posts so far but lets not get carried away by using poor judgement to manually fly at times when prudence dictates using the automation provided.
If a SID has a low level restriction, perhaps anything less than 3000ft, we should be engaging the autopilot to better manage the level off. Complex RNAV arrivals should also be flown using all automation available.
As one post rightly stated, if you are approaching an island in CAVOK or any airport for that matter, where the weather and traffic is acceptable then we should use the opportunity to practice our hand flying skill.
My point is that I agree with all the posts so far but lets not get carried away by using poor judgement to manually fly at times when prudence dictates using the automation provided.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DME arcs are so easy. We did them every night at Kingston. The 727 would stay in a 5 degree bank on autopilot but would roll wings level if less so it was fun to do the 15 DME arc and stay within .2 miles of the arc in a constant bank at 250 knots.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point is that I agree with all the posts so far but lets not get carried away by using poor judgement to manually fly at times when prudence dictates using the automation provided.
I'm not talking superhero one engine out partial-panel stormy-night heroics, I'm talking about quietly keeping your skills honed when opportunity allows; you owe it to yourself and your passengers. The numerous imaginative reasons guys come up with for NOT doing this always smack of nervousness and insecurity to me, these are often guys afraid of making mistakes: but of course that's a vicious circle, the less you practice the more rusty you become, the more rusty you are the less you want to hand-fly, and it creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.
The A/P is your assistant, not the other way around!
Therein lies the rub, folks. Unless regulators are willing to compel airlines to do this, then it's all just fancy words.
His background? Turns out he was a former 737 captain for a major domestic airline and his whole career had been an airline pilot from being a cadet. That airline pushed automatics right from the first type rating.
This introduced a breed of pilots totally addicted to button pushing because of company policy. . Of course, individual flight ops inspectors have their own opinions based upon their previous flying experience but few have the desire to buck the system and recommend that hand flying be practiced on line. Nothing will change.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 727 would stay in a 5 degree bank on autopilot but would roll wings level if less so it was fun to do the 15 DME arc and stay within .2 miles of the arc in a constant bank at 250 knots.
In one such 727 incident in night IMC, the pilot conducted a continuous gentle (less than six degrees) angle of bank when turning through 45 degrees as he circum-navigated a storm over the Western Pacific near Guam.
On straightening to a specific compass heading, his AH indicated 15 degrees bank angle error which then progressively got worse to 45 degrees. The only way to rectify the situation was to pull the circuit breaker for the VG and then reset it few minutes later.
This gyro error is discussed in the Collins Radar WXR 700 Pilot Guide that says, among other things, dynamic error is caused by the gyro aligning with false gravity due to aircraft accelerations...this is an inherent limitation of gyro technology...VG errors may be caused by shallow turns, and autopilot interaction...in effect the VG aligns itself with bank angles of less than six degrees but lags due to the slowness of the erection circuit.
In other words it is better to keep the angle of bank to more than six degrees in a prolonged shallow turn (such as a DME arc, otherwise there is the potential for pilot disorientation in IMC when a false bank angle occurs on the ADI. We are talking about old aircraft with `steam driven` ADI's.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The more concerning issue is those myriad CAVOK days where you can see the field 30 miles out, you're on vectors for an ILS, and it would frankly be a shame to let the A/P do the flying instead of taking the opportunity to shake off a little of the rust that inevitably accumulates. And yet I rarely see anyone click off the autopilot and handfly, let alone switch off the F/Ds and practice their scan. When I do, I inevitably get that suspicious "I've never seen anyone do that before, are we even allowed to do that?" look from the F/O.
The captain said why not turn off the FD seeing as you have an instrument rating test coming up where you will be required to demonstrate a raw data ILS? The F/O said I may need the FD for a GA? The captain replied you don't need the aid of the FD for a GA under these conditions. Reluctantly the F/O switched off the FD and a perfectly normal ILS was hand flown without the aid of the FD.
Later the captain asked where the F/O had undergone his 737 type rating as he was obviously a bit twitchy about flying CAVOK on a visual hand flown approach. Turns out the third party simulator provider taught full automatics from the very first simulator session.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why, when I'm at work I like hearing those 3 magic words from pilots - "Request visual approach"
BMI Baby crews used to do it quite often in the evenings as soon as they became number 1 in sequence. I hear a few Atlantic Airlines pilots do it but not many others at all (bar the flying school of course) which is a shame as the RYR cadets spend a week here just flying visual circuits all day in a B738 but I havent once heard a scheduled RYR flight go visual, only ever remaining on the RADAR vectors.
BMI Baby crews used to do it quite often in the evenings as soon as they became number 1 in sequence. I hear a few Atlantic Airlines pilots do it but not many others at all (bar the flying school of course) which is a shame as the RYR cadets spend a week here just flying visual circuits all day in a B738 but I havent once heard a scheduled RYR flight go visual, only ever remaining on the RADAR vectors.
Last edited by Burnie5204; 12th Jan 2013 at 10:11.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is why, when I'm at work I like hearing those 3 magic words from pilots - "Request visual approach"
BMI Baby crews used to do it quite often in the evenings as soon as they became number 1 in sequence. I hear a few Atlantic Airlines pilots do it but not many others at all (bar the flying school of course) which is a shame as the RYR cadets spend a week here just flying visual circuits all day in a B738 but I havent once heard a scheduled RYR flight go visual, only ever remaining on the RADAR vectors.
BMI Baby crews used to do it quite often in the evenings as soon as they became number 1 in sequence. I hear a few Atlantic Airlines pilots do it but not many others at all (bar the flying school of course) which is a shame as the RYR cadets spend a week here just flying visual circuits all day in a B738 but I havent once heard a scheduled RYR flight go visual, only ever remaining on the RADAR vectors.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Midlands
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course airlines arent going to like their pilots doing that when automation is available
But why shouldn't they? The Pilots are supposed to be capable of doing it otherwise what would they expect to do if the FD/AP drops out?
In my mind there's only one way to stay proficient at that sort of flying and that is to physically do it in a real aircraft. Sims may be getting more and more realistic but there's no substitute for being strapped into a real aircraft.
But why shouldn't they? The Pilots are supposed to be capable of doing it otherwise what would they expect to do if the FD/AP drops out?
In my mind there's only one way to stay proficient at that sort of flying and that is to physically do it in a real aircraft. Sims may be getting more and more realistic but there's no substitute for being strapped into a real aircraft.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My major US airline had no restrictions on manual flying unless it was lower than Cat 1 approach minimums. We used AP and AT and FD only as a convenience or to reduce work load, our choice. We could dispatch with all three inop and climb to any altitude we wanted to when I was flying. I know now RSVM requires it but I retired just before it began in the US in 2003. Not letting pilots hand fly because of SOP's is asking for trouble.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Western USA
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Simply put, the best way to minimize manual handling errors is...to practice manual handling...within one's own envelope of limitations. That envelope will almost certainly expand as one becomes familiar with the concept. If the person in the seat is too lazy or inept to do that, then he/she should seek another occupation where whining excuses are held to a higher value. 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North America
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
F/O: 'mind if I turn the AP off?'
Capt: 'sure; go ahead'
F/O: 'mind if I turn the flight directors off?'
Capt: 'well, I suppose so'
F/O: 'mind if I turn the autothrottles off?'
Capt: 'why do you want to do that for!?'
Mid 90's when I used to fly the 320. I realised that I hadn't hand flown the 320 for the previous couple of years, except take-off (first 400 feet) and landing (last 1000 feet). I discovered that my instrument scan had become terrible at that point.
There was a reluctance to hand fly it, partly because of company policy. Partly also because we seemed to have been brainwashed into thinking that the 320 was not meant to be hand flown. Actually, it is a very nice handling airplane.
Capt: 'sure; go ahead'
F/O: 'mind if I turn the flight directors off?'
Capt: 'well, I suppose so'
F/O: 'mind if I turn the autothrottles off?'
Capt: 'why do you want to do that for!?'
Mid 90's when I used to fly the 320. I realised that I hadn't hand flown the 320 for the previous couple of years, except take-off (first 400 feet) and landing (last 1000 feet). I discovered that my instrument scan had become terrible at that point.
There was a reluctance to hand fly it, partly because of company policy. Partly also because we seemed to have been brainwashed into thinking that the 320 was not meant to be hand flown. Actually, it is a very nice handling airplane.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a SID has a low level restriction, perhaps anything less than 3000ft, we should be engaging the autopilot to better manage the level off.
If I find myself screaming up at 4000fpm on a low altitude level off, adjusting the power setting does the trick most of the time.
Last edited by Check Airman; 13th Jan 2013 at 01:56.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Burnie:
True enough. But, this has nothing to do with terrain in the terminal airspace and night visual approaches. (My Post #29 to you.)
Of course airlines arent going to like their pilots doing that when automation is available
But why shouldn't they? The Pilots are supposed to be capable of doing it otherwise what would they expect to do if the FD/AP drops out?
In my mind there's only one way to stay proficient at that sort of flying and that is to physically do it in a real aircraft. Sims may be getting more and more realistic but there's no substitute for being strapped into a real aircraft.
But why shouldn't they? The Pilots are supposed to be capable of doing it otherwise what would they expect to do if the FD/AP drops out?
In my mind there's only one way to stay proficient at that sort of flying and that is to physically do it in a real aircraft. Sims may be getting more and more realistic but there's no substitute for being strapped into a real aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 39
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FAA concerns about manual handling errors. Sure. So i was pretty suprised to hear, that long range pilots only fly 2-3 sectors a month. Wow. And when they do so, they aren´t that much proficient as other pilots flying a beech, cessna and whatever without autopilot.
What are the discussions about flying raw data ils approaches without autopilot. Folks, do you really think that is above standard skill? Or flying without autopilot out of flight level 150. Sorry guys, people who aren´t able to do this aren't real pilots and were never screened of a professional.
I often think of the situation that my 320 looses two hydraulic systems with a engine failure and a light stall on the other engine. In fact the flight director quits the service as well as the flight path angle. For sure, we have 30 knots xwind and not much fuel. These are the situations the boys train their skills with flying a raw data sector or a visual? Come on. They should cancel their 7896 insurances which should protect us and actually never help us in out life till we die.
Our operation asks for more airmanship: Don´t discuss terrain warnings when they come. Learn the performance of your aircraft especially on contaminated runways instead of a smooth touchdown. Be legal every time or at least try to be. Know how much fuel you need. Be a leader instead of satisfying your ego with hand flown approaches.
I wanna say: Use automatics when you need them. Fly raw data when you have fun. Because we´re pilots. But never ever say you´re more proficient than other pilots only because you fly here and there a raw data or visual with a visibility from pole to pole.
PS: All the guys telling you, that they flew so much raw data in the early years and all pilots with glass cockpit couldn´t fly, tell them to use street maps to navigate next time instead of their little fancy gps iphone.
What are the discussions about flying raw data ils approaches without autopilot. Folks, do you really think that is above standard skill? Or flying without autopilot out of flight level 150. Sorry guys, people who aren´t able to do this aren't real pilots and were never screened of a professional.
I often think of the situation that my 320 looses two hydraulic systems with a engine failure and a light stall on the other engine. In fact the flight director quits the service as well as the flight path angle. For sure, we have 30 knots xwind and not much fuel. These are the situations the boys train their skills with flying a raw data sector or a visual? Come on. They should cancel their 7896 insurances which should protect us and actually never help us in out life till we die.
Our operation asks for more airmanship: Don´t discuss terrain warnings when they come. Learn the performance of your aircraft especially on contaminated runways instead of a smooth touchdown. Be legal every time or at least try to be. Know how much fuel you need. Be a leader instead of satisfying your ego with hand flown approaches.
I wanna say: Use automatics when you need them. Fly raw data when you have fun. Because we´re pilots. But never ever say you´re more proficient than other pilots only because you fly here and there a raw data or visual with a visibility from pole to pole.
PS: All the guys telling you, that they flew so much raw data in the early years and all pilots with glass cockpit couldn´t fly, tell them to use street maps to navigate next time instead of their little fancy gps iphone.
Last edited by Speedwinner; 13th Jan 2013 at 13:37.
777B
The problem with this forum is that a lot of people post without really reading or digesting what has been previously stated. Your points just about sum up the whole issue about manual flying, i.e Yes, very necessary, but there is a time and place for everything.
Years ago, my F/O wanted to fly the whole (short) sector from one Gulf airport to another; this in the A330. Autopilot off, autothrottle off,(yes, not a disaster in the scarebus!). Nice day, no traffic, NO PROBLEM
(There IS a time and place for everything. As professional aviators, our job is to make the right choices. That's the least we can do for the fare paying punters riding down the back. The problem-as others have pointed out-is that these options are becoming fewer and fewer these days. The commercial skies are simply getting too crowded. Monitoring by all is now the order of the day, or else trouble looms. RVSM, RNP,RNAV was not an issue in the good old days; it is now, which is why most sensible operators demand full use of automation to meet the rigid standards).
Now, the requirement to keep the right side up in emergency situations is another matter entirely, and this comes down to selection and training issues. Hand flying skills per se are not the only solution. Just take a look at the accident rates of the byegone era. The Atlantic Barons were pretty well schooled in manual flying, (handicapped by high rates of mechanical failures), but control loss and CFIT were still alarmingly high.
In the military, manual instrument flying skills were mandatory for a successful career; night low level intercepts/attacks over the sea- (500 ft, 500 knots, 60 degrees angle of bank)- was not the time and place to be doubting your manual flying skills. But, well practiced as we were, we still lost good guys, for reasons unknown. Human error will always be with us, no matter what. Automation simply loads the dice in our favour.
Want to have fun and keep your hand in? Go fly a Pitts Special. (always did wonder why aeros training was not mandatory for commercial pilots
)
I absolutely agree that we should all practice manual flight wherever possible.
However, it needs to be said that in the modern environment we should be
circumspect where we do this. In the early days, if we had a low level altitude
capture for example, it didn't matter too much if we overshot by a small margin.
Today we can't get away with such errors. I would suggest that if we are in a
metric environment such as China and Russia, we absolutely have to engage the
autopilot at minimum height. This allows the PM to monitor better and reduces
the threat of setting an incorrect value.
If a SID has a low level
restriction, perhaps anything less than 3000ft, we should be engaging the
autopilot to better manage the level off. Complex RNAV arrivals should also be
flown using all automation available.
As one post rightly stated, if you are
approaching an island in CAVOK or any airport for that matter, where the weather
and traffic is acceptable then we should use the opportunity to practice our
hand flying skill.
My point is that I agree with all the posts so far but
lets not get carried away by using poor judgement to manually fly at times when
prudence dictates using the automation provided.
However, it needs to be said that in the modern environment we should be
circumspect where we do this. In the early days, if we had a low level altitude
capture for example, it didn't matter too much if we overshot by a small margin.
Today we can't get away with such errors. I would suggest that if we are in a
metric environment such as China and Russia, we absolutely have to engage the
autopilot at minimum height. This allows the PM to monitor better and reduces
the threat of setting an incorrect value.
If a SID has a low level
restriction, perhaps anything less than 3000ft, we should be engaging the
autopilot to better manage the level off. Complex RNAV arrivals should also be
flown using all automation available.
As one post rightly stated, if you are
approaching an island in CAVOK or any airport for that matter, where the weather
and traffic is acceptable then we should use the opportunity to practice our
hand flying skill.
My point is that I agree with all the posts so far but
lets not get carried away by using poor judgement to manually fly at times when
prudence dictates using the automation provided.
Years ago, my F/O wanted to fly the whole (short) sector from one Gulf airport to another; this in the A330. Autopilot off, autothrottle off,(yes, not a disaster in the scarebus!). Nice day, no traffic, NO PROBLEM
(There IS a time and place for everything. As professional aviators, our job is to make the right choices. That's the least we can do for the fare paying punters riding down the back. The problem-as others have pointed out-is that these options are becoming fewer and fewer these days. The commercial skies are simply getting too crowded. Monitoring by all is now the order of the day, or else trouble looms. RVSM, RNP,RNAV was not an issue in the good old days; it is now, which is why most sensible operators demand full use of automation to meet the rigid standards).
Now, the requirement to keep the right side up in emergency situations is another matter entirely, and this comes down to selection and training issues. Hand flying skills per se are not the only solution. Just take a look at the accident rates of the byegone era. The Atlantic Barons were pretty well schooled in manual flying, (handicapped by high rates of mechanical failures), but control loss and CFIT were still alarmingly high.
In the military, manual instrument flying skills were mandatory for a successful career; night low level intercepts/attacks over the sea- (500 ft, 500 knots, 60 degrees angle of bank)- was not the time and place to be doubting your manual flying skills. But, well practiced as we were, we still lost good guys, for reasons unknown. Human error will always be with us, no matter what. Automation simply loads the dice in our favour.
Want to have fun and keep your hand in? Go fly a Pitts Special. (always did wonder why aeros training was not mandatory for commercial pilots
)
Most posts in this thread focus on the need for more manual flight, but few if any actually state what this will achieve in respect to the ‘manual handling errors’ analysed by the FAA.
As @ post #15, there is no data on the nature of problems which result in error; many people are guessing or linking the increased use of automation (reduced manual flight) with error, but without data and reasoned explanation, this is only supposition.
Considering that the vast majority of normal operations are flown safely, and that most of these operations involve automation, perhaps the industry should investigate what current crews do that enables them to avoid ‘manual handling errors’. Daily operations will provide far more evidence of what goes right (including recovery from error) as opposed to what goes wrong.
The industry should focus on the positive aspects of safety; how did crews avoid or recover from upset situations, manage ADC/ASI and autopilot failure, conduct check-flight stalling in high technology aircraft, and routinely fly missed approach go-around manoeuvres.
In order to understand the reasons behind what goes wrong – resulting in ‘error’, it is necessary to know what goes right and why, then compare the two cases.
As @ post #15, there is no data on the nature of problems which result in error; many people are guessing or linking the increased use of automation (reduced manual flight) with error, but without data and reasoned explanation, this is only supposition.
Considering that the vast majority of normal operations are flown safely, and that most of these operations involve automation, perhaps the industry should investigate what current crews do that enables them to avoid ‘manual handling errors’. Daily operations will provide far more evidence of what goes right (including recovery from error) as opposed to what goes wrong.
The industry should focus on the positive aspects of safety; how did crews avoid or recover from upset situations, manage ADC/ASI and autopilot failure, conduct check-flight stalling in high technology aircraft, and routinely fly missed approach go-around manoeuvres.
In order to understand the reasons behind what goes wrong – resulting in ‘error’, it is necessary to know what goes right and why, then compare the two cases.
Last edited by safetypee; 13th Jan 2013 at 17:17.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to your logic, we should investigate what people do to manage to live a happy marriage and out of that we should then better understand why some end up in violence .....
Sounds intelligent, but not very practicable. Just about as your theory.
Do not complicate things, especially when a regulator finally steps in and points to a pandemic in modern aviation.
-> The training has been diluted to the point of having airline professionals who have less total manual hours on equipment than some Cessna hobby pilot.
-> The recency in manual skills has been reduced to the last 500 feet with completely established parameters and maybe one handling sim-session with a well briefed 30 minutes of coordinated turns and a one-engine ILS approach without FD.
Please do not dress up whatever could serve as a lame excuse for such a situation by putting an intelligent sounding statistical and bureaucratic veil over the topic .... in orden not having to act.
Face it:
Today's pilots lack training and skill when the holy automatics go West.
Do something about it.
Sounds intelligent, but not very practicable. Just about as your theory.
Do not complicate things, especially when a regulator finally steps in and points to a pandemic in modern aviation.
-> The training has been diluted to the point of having airline professionals who have less total manual hours on equipment than some Cessna hobby pilot.
-> The recency in manual skills has been reduced to the last 500 feet with completely established parameters and maybe one handling sim-session with a well briefed 30 minutes of coordinated turns and a one-engine ILS approach without FD.
Please do not dress up whatever could serve as a lame excuse for such a situation by putting an intelligent sounding statistical and bureaucratic veil over the topic .... in orden not having to act.
Face it:
Today's pilots lack training and skill when the holy automatics go West.
Do something about it.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: AUSTRALIA - CHINA STHN
Age: 59
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arc technique
Very good post.... In fact the taught technique of 10-15 ahead /behind the needle is for that exact reason of cutout alignment thresholds and false horizon on rollout.
However- the A330 fmgs when flying arcs depending on the range, flies them as low AOB and the stby AI will have residual bank on rollout.. It might be digital etc but has the same albeit minor issue. so not just a steam driven problem.
Similarly autothrust in holding ..... Older aircraft without autothrottle/thrust you would hold in a race track at about min drag plus ten kts... That way thrust remained constant, and speed dropped due to the turns , but stayed above min drag = lessfuel burn.
New aircraft fly min clean , or green dot in the hold and thus " throttle bash " to hold the selected speed = burn more fuel...
So some of the old technques are still valid but the history has or is getting lost ...
However- the A330 fmgs when flying arcs depending on the range, flies them as low AOB and the stby AI will have residual bank on rollout.. It might be digital etc but has the same albeit minor issue. so not just a steam driven problem.
Similarly autothrust in holding ..... Older aircraft without autothrottle/thrust you would hold in a race track at about min drag plus ten kts... That way thrust remained constant, and speed dropped due to the turns , but stayed above min drag = lessfuel burn.
New aircraft fly min clean , or green dot in the hold and thus " throttle bash " to hold the selected speed = burn more fuel...
So some of the old technques are still valid but the history has or is getting lost ...
It is strange but, the IR has become something of a surrogate handling test. Commercial restrictions are not going to allow extra sim time or base flying that is not mandated by law and there is some extra risk in self taught training coupled with the fact that todays flightdeck automation is designed to allow safe operation in demanding airspace. If poor handling skills are an issue, the regulatory bodies should establish a mandatory handling skill test to augment the IR test.