" FAA concerned about increase in manual handling errors"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
" FAA concerned about increase in manual handling errors"
News: FAA concerned about increase in manual handling errors
Good approach IMHO, no fancy "heroic" stuff, just practising manual flying in everyday operations when it's safe to do so.
Good approach IMHO, no fancy "heroic" stuff, just practising manual flying in everyday operations when it's safe to do so.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: earth
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good approach IMHO, no fancy "heroic" stuff, just practicing manual flying in everyday operations when it's safe to do so.
when it's safe to do so.
What disgusts me is that it is so clear that aircraft manufacturers have been allowed to cater to liability free operation through the sale of automation. They also sell aircraft that require less maintenance to maintain automation at what I feel is a lesser standard leaving the operator with more responsibility and less help.
From the pilots aspect the above is clear. From the mechanical as an aircraft ages it degrades and support for troubleshooting degrades with it as they wan the aircraft to become less reliable forcing a new aircraft purchase to bring the numbers up.
Damn, I am ranting again. Suppose I miss the classics.
Last edited by grounded27; 11th Jan 2013 at 05:20.
Grounded27, please exhibit a bit of balance. We do not shut down engines at V1 on revenue flights so that I can maximise my manual flying skills. For the same reason it is unwise to handfly when safety is significantly degraded eg high-traffic, bad weather scenarios.
That said, there are many, many situations where valuable and meaningful manual flying can be conducted quite safely. That was the point Armchairflyer was making.
That said, there are many, many situations where valuable and meaningful manual flying can be conducted quite safely. That was the point Armchairflyer was making.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA identified “an increase in manual handling errors”.
Well congratulations! Hasn’t this been endlessly reported by older pilots for years now? It’s just that if the regulator allowed the operators to subdue such internal reports and itself didn’t want to listen to these voices for ages. It would have meant a) work and b) hurt some buddies in management of the airlines.
The FAA suggests “maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight”.
Well congratulations again! At the same time the regulators approve such a stupid syllabus as the MCC. A blatant contradiction exposing this new article as hollow speech. You cannot maintain what has not been learnt! At the same time you cannot improve where there was no basic ground work, and installing the basics should definitely not be done on line.
The FAA “recommends to all operators to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis on manual flight operations into both line and flight training”.
That’s a start. However, a regulator should not only “recommend”, knowing quite well that the holy beancounters in operations just laugh at recommendations. They should “oblige” airlines to write such emphasis into their OMA, otherwise it simply stays hollow speech.
But the regulator shoud definitely make a higher basic skill mandatory for any commercial licence. Minimal flight hours with well defined training, like i.e. a minimum of aerobatics, and then finally scrap hoax syllabi like the MCC for heaven’s sake!
I would wish that the FOs joining airlines had a much higher proficiency. I am sometimes in complete disarray when I see a set of almost panicking eyes to my right, when I propose a visual into a beautiful island airport with severe cavok threatening for the next few days. They only come back to normal life when you take controls for a few moments to allow them to set up the FMS for a 5 mile parallel downwind leading into a 10 mile final and the ILS underlying as back-up.
Please FAA, either do it right or don’t elaborate on the subject at all.
The actual approach is simply a fig leaf to pretend doing something.
Well congratulations! Hasn’t this been endlessly reported by older pilots for years now? It’s just that if the regulator allowed the operators to subdue such internal reports and itself didn’t want to listen to these voices for ages. It would have meant a) work and b) hurt some buddies in management of the airlines.
The FAA suggests “maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight”.
Well congratulations again! At the same time the regulators approve such a stupid syllabus as the MCC. A blatant contradiction exposing this new article as hollow speech. You cannot maintain what has not been learnt! At the same time you cannot improve where there was no basic ground work, and installing the basics should definitely not be done on line.
The FAA “recommends to all operators to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis on manual flight operations into both line and flight training”.
That’s a start. However, a regulator should not only “recommend”, knowing quite well that the holy beancounters in operations just laugh at recommendations. They should “oblige” airlines to write such emphasis into their OMA, otherwise it simply stays hollow speech.
But the regulator shoud definitely make a higher basic skill mandatory for any commercial licence. Minimal flight hours with well defined training, like i.e. a minimum of aerobatics, and then finally scrap hoax syllabi like the MCC for heaven’s sake!
I would wish that the FOs joining airlines had a much higher proficiency. I am sometimes in complete disarray when I see a set of almost panicking eyes to my right, when I propose a visual into a beautiful island airport with severe cavok threatening for the next few days. They only come back to normal life when you take controls for a few moments to allow them to set up the FMS for a 5 mile parallel downwind leading into a 10 mile final and the ILS underlying as back-up.
Please FAA, either do it right or don’t elaborate on the subject at all.
The actual approach is simply a fig leaf to pretend doing something.
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 11th Jan 2013 at 05:21.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MCC
The FAA has never subscribed to the MCC load of crap. That was a European thing. The FAA increased the minimum to be a co-pilot to 1500 hours. I would rather have a 1500 hour banner tower than a 250 hour MCC pilot next to me.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My humble point was indeed that simply focusing on everyday practice in the daily work environment instead of more fancy settings seems like a useful and realistic approach to me. Of course one can ask for top-gun line pilots who (after grueling selection and hypertough training) could safely pick up handkerchiefs with their wingtip (inverted in case of good weather), hand-fly a CAT III approach in a snowstorm on one engine and standby instrumens, and ace the most challenging sim exercises blindfolded, one-handed, and with ping-pong balls thrown at them while the check pilot belts out "You’ve lost that lovin’ feelin’". But somehow I feel that concentrating on just being at ease with normal manual flying in day-to-day operations whenever the situation permits without nibbling away at any safety margins is the more promising approach.
Of course, a bit more impetus in this direction (as Gretchenfrage put it: "oblige" instead of "recommend") might indeed be necessary to realize any potential benefits, otherwise it will partly remain "strictly forbidden" in favor of bottom line and bonuses for the company's next quarterly report.
Of course, a bit more impetus in this direction (as Gretchenfrage put it: "oblige" instead of "recommend") might indeed be necessary to realize any potential benefits, otherwise it will partly remain "strictly forbidden" in favor of bottom line and bonuses for the company's next quarterly report.
Last edited by Armchairflyer; 11th Jan 2013 at 12:22.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The FAA has never subscribed to the MCC load of crap. That was a European thing. The FAA increased the minimum to be a co-pilot to 1500 hours. I would rather have a 1500 hour banner tower than a 250 hour MCC pilot next to me.
How about banning MCC pilots from flying into the USA?
There are blacklisted airlines, so the same could apply to inadequately trained pilots.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What disgusts me is that it is so clear that aircraft manufacturers have been allowed to cater to liability free operation through the sale of automation. They also sell aircraft that require less maintenance to maintain automation at what I feel is a lesser standard leaving the operator with more responsibility and less help.
The FAA requiring 1500 hours to be FO is a sledgehammer to crack a nut!
In a well regulated environment 250 hour cadets can and often are just as competent as anyone else.
Extra hours in the logbook is useful but it's not the only parameter that counts.
In a well regulated environment 250 hour cadets can and often are just as competent as anyone else.
Extra hours in the logbook is useful but it's not the only parameter that counts.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
250 cadets in a B738 after a thorough training are fine. What scares me are 3000hr captains who have also been through the same robotic trained monkey training scheme and nothing else. The basic course for cadets is procedures, procedures and more procedures. Flying and thinking and making decisions outside SIP's is not included. I'm not sure how much of that is included in the command course either. It's the future of cockpit experience that concerns me more than the present. Unfortunately the future is always built on the present.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Essex
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rat 5 is right, a 3000 hr Captain can get there having never gone around, never landed in a dark and stormy night onto a short slippery runway, never had an autopilot kick out because it can't cope, never had an FO put the wrong rudder in at 20 feet. You can only hope that they gain that experience slowly before they are tested on it quickly.
Is the FAA holding the wrong end of the elephant ?
The FAA safety message is somewhat illogical. The need to address manual handling errors is based on an analysis of normal operations, incidents, and accidents. Yet errors are to be expected; it is the severity of the outcome and underlying cause which demands action. No such reasoning is stated in the SAFO.
Incidents and accidents receive most attention as generally the outcome of ‘error’ in these was more severe (consequential) than in normal operations. Yet a cursory review of ‘handling’ incidents / accidents shows a range of situations; many involved system failures or abnormal operations, and many with adequately trained and experience crews. There were some self-inflicted incidents/accidents, but these and the ‘failures’ all have a common theme relating to understanding the situation (including weather and workload); either in failing to avoid hazardous conditions, failure to appreciate the situation or previous error, or failure to choose or act on a safe course of action.
Requiring pilots to have more manual flight time may help maintain professional standards, but will it address the needs relating to the ‘manual handling errors’. Are we expecting plots to make errors so to practice recovery from the error?
Manual flight is unlikely to be conducted in adverse weather or involving high workload, or with systems failures; and obscure situational factors resulting in accidents are unlikely to be encountered. There is little evidence that crews could not have avoided or recovered from adverse situations (with existing manual flying skills) if the situation had been understood or there was a timely choice of action.
If the dominant issue is in understanding the situation, then perhaps there should be specific training targeting this issue. Manual instrument flight could help, as would wider experience of non-normal operations, e.g. go around. But even non-normal operations require good situational understanding and an apt decision to choose the manoeuvre; the skill to accomplish safe flight is secondary to awareness and choice of action; no evidence of absence of skill is provided.
The FAA has made a case for manual flight without presenting a justified basis. The interpretations in implementing the recommendations may be as wide as the range of views in this thread – but which will address the safety issue; there is a safety issue, but at which end of the elephant is it?
Incidents and accidents receive most attention as generally the outcome of ‘error’ in these was more severe (consequential) than in normal operations. Yet a cursory review of ‘handling’ incidents / accidents shows a range of situations; many involved system failures or abnormal operations, and many with adequately trained and experience crews. There were some self-inflicted incidents/accidents, but these and the ‘failures’ all have a common theme relating to understanding the situation (including weather and workload); either in failing to avoid hazardous conditions, failure to appreciate the situation or previous error, or failure to choose or act on a safe course of action.
Requiring pilots to have more manual flight time may help maintain professional standards, but will it address the needs relating to the ‘manual handling errors’. Are we expecting plots to make errors so to practice recovery from the error?
Manual flight is unlikely to be conducted in adverse weather or involving high workload, or with systems failures; and obscure situational factors resulting in accidents are unlikely to be encountered. There is little evidence that crews could not have avoided or recovered from adverse situations (with existing manual flying skills) if the situation had been understood or there was a timely choice of action.
If the dominant issue is in understanding the situation, then perhaps there should be specific training targeting this issue. Manual instrument flight could help, as would wider experience of non-normal operations, e.g. go around. But even non-normal operations require good situational understanding and an apt decision to choose the manoeuvre; the skill to accomplish safe flight is secondary to awareness and choice of action; no evidence of absence of skill is provided.
The FAA has made a case for manual flight without presenting a justified basis. The interpretations in implementing the recommendations may be as wide as the range of views in this thread – but which will address the safety issue; there is a safety issue, but at which end of the elephant is it?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Limbo
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would wish that the FOs joining airlines had a much higher proficiency. I am sometimes in complete disarray when I see a set of almost panicking eyes to my right, when I propose a visual into a beautiful island airport with severe cavok threatening for the next few days. They only come back to normal life when you take controls for a few moments to allow them to set up the FMS for a 5 mile parallel downwind leading into a 10 mile final and the ILS underlying as back-up.
I made so bold as to fly an ILS manually (before such 'high risk behaviour' was banned by my company) with a reported cloud base of 700'. (Before someone screams 'you shouldn't have done that in such conditions' - Colombo, no other traffic, good and trustworthy ATC and Met reporting.) My (Brit) FO was damn near squirming out of his seat before - I'm sure, to his utter surprise - the bloody runway appeared, right where it was expected, in the windscreen at 699'.
I have friends of my own (old) age who will argue that maximum use of automation at all times is the only way to go, but I think they're missing the point. If it's CAVOK and the traffic is light, manual flying should not just be permitted, it should be encouraged.
When it was allowed, I used to make myself do at least one raw data, no auto throttle approach a month. In my experience, those who did this didn't need to, while the opposite applied, almost without exception, to those who didn't.
It might happen just once in a forty year career - but it only takes once - when the automatics let you down. Every pilot owes it to himself to have developed - and maintained - the skills that will allow him to cope with that highly unusual situation.
Sofaman;
Nicely put. Just that "whenever the situation permits" is less and less an option these days. We're not flying DC 3's anymore. This is the era of RNP/RVSM/ Crowded ATC/Low cost carriers filling the skies. Manual flying, as we used to know it, is no longer feasible, especially for long haul operators; Just invites you to the office for tea and biccys for some violation or other, be it company ops or ATC.
Like it or not, we are in the autopilot era, and so be it. However, I do wholeheartedly agree that manual flying skills need to be reinforced. I have preached ad nauseam on this forum that this should be done in the sim and not on day to day line ops. However, sim training these days seems to focus on LOFT exercises.
Jeez, on one LPC. we spent 1 hour doing low vis taxi around AMS followed by full de-ice procedures before getting airborne! What a waste of sim time. This sort of stuff should be reserved for the MFTD. Full flight sim time should involve more raw data manual flying business; that's where you find out if guy's still have the "Right Stuff", but then, in many companys that may not be politically correct or accepatable (too many failures?)
So automation continues to rule, 24/7. That is modern day Aviation Life.
My humble point was indeed that simply focusing on everyday practice in the
daily work environment instead of more fancy settings seems like a useful and
realistic approach to me. Of course one can ask for top-gun line pilots who
(after grueling selection and hypertough training) could safely pick up
handkerchiefs with their wingtip (inverted in case of good weather), hand-fly a
CAT III approach in a snowstorm on one engine and standby instrumens, and ace
the most challenging sim exercises blindfolded, one-handed, and with ping-pong
balls thrown at them while the check pilot belts out "You’ve lost that lovin’
feelin’". But somehow I feel that concentrating on just being at ease with
normal manual flying in day-to-day operations whenever the situation permits
without nibbling away at any safety margins is the more promising approach
daily work environment instead of more fancy settings seems like a useful and
realistic approach to me. Of course one can ask for top-gun line pilots who
(after grueling selection and hypertough training) could safely pick up
handkerchiefs with their wingtip (inverted in case of good weather), hand-fly a
CAT III approach in a snowstorm on one engine and standby instrumens, and ace
the most challenging sim exercises blindfolded, one-handed, and with ping-pong
balls thrown at them while the check pilot belts out "You’ve lost that lovin’
feelin’". But somehow I feel that concentrating on just being at ease with
normal manual flying in day-to-day operations whenever the situation permits
without nibbling away at any safety margins is the more promising approach
Like it or not, we are in the autopilot era, and so be it. However, I do wholeheartedly agree that manual flying skills need to be reinforced. I have preached ad nauseam on this forum that this should be done in the sim and not on day to day line ops. However, sim training these days seems to focus on LOFT exercises.
Jeez, on one LPC. we spent 1 hour doing low vis taxi around AMS followed by full de-ice procedures before getting airborne! What a waste of sim time. This sort of stuff should be reserved for the MFTD. Full flight sim time should involve more raw data manual flying business; that's where you find out if guy's still have the "Right Stuff", but then, in many companys that may not be politically correct or accepatable (too many failures?)
So automation continues to rule, 24/7. That is modern day Aviation Life.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
oh come on...if you are in a wx condition (other than low visibility autoland or similiar), you better damn well be able to hand fly...even an autoland may require you to manually go around or take HAND action of some sort.
I've hand flown to minimums on approaches...I've hand flown in turbulence, I've hand flown at max authorized altitude (remember when that was called ''service ceiling"?) and I wouldn't be worthy of the name PILOT unless I could do it.
what the freaking thing is wrong now a days.
I've hand flown to minimums on approaches...I've hand flown in turbulence, I've hand flown at max authorized altitude (remember when that was called ''service ceiling"?) and I wouldn't be worthy of the name PILOT unless I could do it.
what the freaking thing is wrong now a days.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autopilots were a luxury for my first three thousand so rarely available for minimums approaches. We didn't need them because we all could hand fly well. I don't think we should now say we only need programmers, not real pilots to fly airliners. A 15 year old kid can push buttons better than most of us.
AF 447 is one example of losing or never having hand flying skills. I hope with the new FAA rules the US will not go down this slide. Sometimes automation fails, now you need a real pilot.
AF 447 is one example of losing or never having hand flying skills. I hope with the new FAA rules the US will not go down this slide. Sometimes automation fails, now you need a real pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hands ON
How right Croozin is (#16). In many cases it never happens and the nearer retirement looms, the more one hopes it never does. I had the misfortune to experience an engine failure followed by an APU glitch causing total screen loss and thus a single engine NPA on stand-by instruments – and a G/A just for good measure. My previous 8k or so hours had been on a steam driven (albeit high performance) aircraft which involved a great deal of hand flying, so it was no big deal. I was able to take a glance at the right hand seat and was rather disturbed to see a certain degree of – “disengagement?” and fear that this is the future. If hand flying is actively discouraged (and I agree with “obliged” rather than “encouraged”), then we might as well all go home and leave it to the automatics – but I do not think that there will be many passengers to pay for the bean counters’ bonus. For heaven’s sake, are you a PILOT?