Now, that's just plain naughty, BOAC, and I can't let it pass. I sat next to you once, in a-200, and when I asked if you'd mind if I flew manually, you quoted some stuff about the flying manual requiring a dual-channel automatic approach. I seem to remember pointing out to you that the FM also said that pilots were encouraged to practice their hand flying.

As such, this FO flew a manual approach without FD, and the subsequent ILS and landing were "without incident". Be careful who you "diss"!

Best regards, Slickster (ex-cadet, and therefore, presumambly a graduate of the "Magenta Kindergarten"!)

Ignition Override (To state the obvious) Because the system designers told them to!

The reason is even simpler: To make money and beat the other team. What follows is pure supposition on my part. EADS can sell their a/c as being cheaper to run because, if you fly them on the automaticas, you can plan the sectors and their costs closer than the opposition. Hence the carrier emphasising the use of automatics. They might also say that the training is less intensive and SIM checks are easier. They might say that a generation of students that grew up with computers will understand all these system. Whatever they do say, it will be with the objective of making money and winning!

I grew up in the old world. My paternal grandfather was RFC (SE5As), my father was RAF (Rad/Nav/Radar on night fighters) and my newphew's first commercial work was on Do228 (he is now P3 on 744) and I like the fact that he wants to fly the machine.

--------------------
"I tell you, we are here on Earth to fart around, and don't let anybody tell you any different." Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.

Point taken, Homer, but I still have to stand with the 'luddites' on this. I recall, not too many years ago, doing a route check where we suffered a double FMS failure at around 15,000' on descent. (The aircraft had a history of this problem, but when else would you suffer a *** double FMS failure on descent than on your *** route check????)

I asked the FO to dial in the inbound VOR radial, (for those not familiar with the modern FMS, three pages, including the RAD/NAV page, where you can make approach aid frequency selections manually, remain available on a 'failed' FMS), we both switched our displays to VOR mode (which gives an ‘old fashioned’ CDI presentation) and were quite content to fly the radial until we took a radar marshal before switching to APP mode for the ILS, (which would also have to me manually inserted). He was one of those increasingly rare creatures, an FO with extensive GA experience, and was more than happy with this.

But the checkie, an ex cadet who had gone straight from initial training into widebodies, informed us in horrified tones that "you can't fly an approach without the magenta line" - and proceeded to lean over the centre console and recover my FMS for me, which he succeeded in doing by about 7000'. (Not without causing myself and the FO considerable distraction.)

In my eyes, the check captain was wrong, while in his, I was. Nothing was said in the debrief, but the incident illustrated what many of the old school find concerning. If the toys we've all come to love and rely on fall over, particularly below 10,000’, forget them and FLY THE *** AEROPLANE.

Unfortunately, there seems to be an increasingly large number of pilots in our ranks who can’t do that without the toys.

410: I can't believe that anyone who is so ignorant ( for us on the old "steam-gauges" with just an altitude hold and manually-set VORs, found on a very cluttered Jeppesen chart) of the ways to fly an approach on the 757 or anything else, is a line check airman. Or maybe I should ask why is he so afraid of using VOR mode, having both an artificial CDI and a flight director? I guess the guy has no real flying background, or so it appears. Are such line check airmen jobs based on politics, or experience, or both etc? Remind him sometime about the 757 crew who followed the newly-created magenta line into the Andes Mountains of Cali, Columbia. And it was their unplanned "retirement flight", and for their passengers-soon to be unidentifiable. They typed "Tulua" into the 'direct box', from what I recall and pushed the LNAV button.

I used the APP mode on each 757 approach (was FO), partly because my plan was to go back to the old technology (as Captain) where a flight director is always used. But watching the traditional HSI (as I still hand-fly :eek: most ILS approaches) course come "active" or "alive", is more reliable for when to turn than only trusting a flight director, which might need re-arming (FD-108 or 109). You can still use the autopilot. But if the sacred "magenta highway" scale is set to a long range, then how does the HSI help the pilot WATCH what is happening? We mostly watched the ADI for the (standby) white modes to turn (active) green. Maybe I forgot too much. On our non-precisions, we must hand-fly the plane. :uhoh:

- hello Slickster. Nice to hear from you again. Sorry you should take my post personally:D.

I cannot let that go as it is really an irrelevance to this thread. Firstly the weather conditions would have been such that the company ORDERS (some stuff) required a dual channel approach or I would not have mentioned that. The option to fly manually was specifically "in suitable wx conditions" - and I believe still is. You will know better than I - and may sometime have to consider whether to allow the breaching of company orders. I rarely refused a request for hand flying in suitable weather or monitoring conditions. I have no dispute with full use of automatics where appropriate. You will recall (I hope) I did NOT believe in 'hacking' a raw data ILS to a Cat I minimum approach just because I was a real man and had skinned rabbits while chewing razor blades for breakfast.

Secondly by your own admission you have flown a 737-200 and came later to a magenta line - which maybe makes you 'excused boots'?

It is only when you see the fluster and totally lost look in the co-pilot's eyes when the automatics fail or the magenta line disappears and they do not know where they are within 200 miles (why keep a PLOG?) that you will understand. Still, early days for you - trust me - I and others have been there.

This 737-FO still uses compass/rose mode during non-precision approaches. Many times a get puzzled looks from the "old dog" in the left seat... "uh... yeah, ok.... are you sure?". I kid you not! Please stop FO bashing, thanks...

Not all FOs are graduates from the "magenta kindergarten" :}

Fantastic discussion, everyone. Most instructive.
.

I've just started operating 737 having come from a turboprop background. Getting to grips with the automation has no doubt been one of the predominant challenges and as I ascend my steep learning curve I'm beginning to realise what a valuable tool the FMC can be, however my understanding is that the FMC is just one of the many tools available to operate the aircraft safely and efficiently.

At the end of the day it all comes down to maintaining situational awareness, I think it's all too easy to relax with automatics watching the aircraft follow it's magenta line and not taking a moment to think about where you actually are. I'm still a great believer in maintaining an element of raw data as back up on the RMI, just in case all else fails....

I know it's not always quite so simple as I've just mentioned, what with distractions from ATC, cabin etc but at the end of the day when all starts turning to rat s**t, as many instructors have told me, aviate, navigate, communicate.

A small note to add, on those days when wx or workload isn't presenting any poblems why not tell the other guy that you want to hand fly on instruments- it has certainly helped with my raw data skills, as I found last time I was in the sim.

I have been fortunate to fly turbo props, 733 &7's and now A319.
Again fortunatly all the companies i have worked for have positively encouraged manual flying.
Disconnecting the A/P & A/THr in a bus is just as enjoyable as it was in the 73.it has exactly the same protection that the 73 had in speed off
what i can never get to grips with is those that then leave the bloomin flight directors in????
Modern day training is such that all our new low hour F/O's come with 200 hours training, no experience of hour building or their first turbo prop. they are taught to deal with the automatics properly because no one willingly flies an A/C into terrain but the autopilot will. They hang on for dear life for a couple of months and then get used to the aircraft and eventually start learning to fly, manually or otherwise.One thing i must say is that the bus makes my life, 4 sector 11:30 hr short haul low cost flying one hell of a lot more comfortable, a lot less knackering and certainly a bit safer. Don't criticise the bus for things you have not tried.
Mind you i did hear over the radio the other day a young voice from the emerald isle requesting from ATC a block altitude of 1000'. when asked why? the response came because we have no autopilot. a little scary i must admit and there may have been more to it but thats what we all heard.

I'm a late joiner to this thread, but scanning through there are many relevant points. However it seems to me that different skills are required dependant on the aircraft / environment / job.

Whilst perhaps stating the obvious, if I am flying a C172 then I need to have certain skills, whilst if making an approach and landing in bad weather in a bus, others apply.

Aviation has moved on, and aircraft of the Airbus type are designed to be flown automatically. It may be more fun, more macho and much more risky (hence the fun and excitement bit) to fly a bus manually, but the hard truth is the MTBF of critical systems is much, much lower than pilot error caused by a competant but tired hand-flying pilot. There is a very good argument for making all landings and approaches autoland, and diverting if the weather is out of cross-wind limits. Controversial perhaps to some in the rightly conservative pilot community for sure, but it is the truth.

We should use the strengths and weaknesses of the pilot and the machine we are flying together to get the job done the best possible way. Yes, CRM includes the machine! In some aircraft it is very necessary to have a high degree of handling skills (traditionally designed machines), whilst far less so in aircraft like the bus, where systems management is much more important. Both by design.

The problem of course comes when somebody who is highly competant on a bus type aircraft tries to do a fully manual ILS and cross wind landing in an old Boeing or C172! But please do not confuse issues - that has nothing to do with operating an Airbus class of aircraft safely in busy airspace and appalling weather! Standards and safety would be degraded not enhanced by practicing manual flying in some aircraft. Welcome to the new world!

Going back to Mark Townsends article last Sunday which started this thread, for me it is just a typical bit of journalism written to sell newspapers with enticing snippets of truth mixed with ill-judged opinion, sensationalism and half quotes, riding on the back of the recent tragic accidents.

A and C it's nice to see that you and good amount of other poeple here agree that that A FO with a solid background in FI /GA might not be to bad to have in the RHS after all. I trained a lot of ME/IR students and flew gargo around at night in piston twins in all kinds of conditions.

I know i would bring a healthy amount of hand flying skills to the flight deck , i have seen no sign at the airlines that they value this kind of experience. From what i understand there are enough pilots with 250hours ,MCC and a TR 737/Airbus in the holding pools.

I don't think there is anything wrong with getting some experience before going to a passenger jet.

My question is : What are you (the guys in the LHS at the EU airlines) doing to get these experienced pilots/FO's in ? ( ok, i have my mouth peace in)
I understand that all of you are very busy with your own T&C and maybe you do a lot more then i'm aware of, in which case i stand to be corrected.

I say lets get some guys in the RHS that still no the basics.:*

There is a book (sold on Amazon) called "Cockpit Automation: For General Aviators and Future Airline Pilots" (Paperback)
by Stephen M. Casner.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...X0DER&st=books

While perusing the introduction available for a quick read online, I found this bit especially interesting:

"What presented the biggest challenge to most students was understanding and maintaining an awareness of what the automation was currently configured to do, especially in challenging scenarios presented by ATC...Students had to be constantly reminded that the automation had a plan of its own, and that the plan had to be continually monitored by the student. As one expert has pointed out, the most common three questions asked in the modern cockpit are as follows:

1. Why did it do that?
2. What's it doing now?
3. What's it going to do next?"

May I remind everybody here that the introduction fo automatics and computers have helped bring down the accident rate. There will always be incidents or accidents where over reliance on the 'automatics' is shown to be one of the causes. The increasing sophistication of the automatics means that more skill is needed to be aquired in order to use them safely and proficiently.

At the same time, basic 'stick & rudder' skills with enough situational awareness are getting eroded due to reliance on the automatics. However, the vast majority of us, whether crusty old captains or doe-eyed, wet behind the ears first officers will have had to show our basic hand flying skills, at least in a light aircraft, at some stage in our training and examination. What is apparent is that those of us lucky enough to progress up the career ladder and get our hands on heavier and shinier metal with all its attendant electronic wizardry do tend to get a bit rusty when it comes to raw data flying.

There will always be a very few pilots who after minimal training can fly anything as though it is on rails. Unfortunately, if you're at all like me and decidedly average, if not below from time to time, you will look forward to those days when you have a destination that allows you to disconnect the autopilot and autothrust, turn off the flight directors and just hand fly the a/c to touchdown. All of the above is of course subject to certain weather conditions. The automatics are there to assist and anyone claiming to have such large and robust cojones that they will always disconnect it all, the worse the weather, should take the time to get hold of a copy of Ernest K. Gann's 'Fate is the Hunter'.

That book, a documentary of what it was like in the early days of airline flying through to it's maturing after WWII, shows precisely why we need all the automation and technology that we can get. What is required these days is proper training in how to use all that technology as well as plenty of practice in basic raw data flying skills.

A good reading also is the CAA paper 2004/10 Flight Crew Reliance on Automation.

I seem to remember that we have had this discussion not so long ago on another thread?

Anyway, let me restate my case; I have always loved automatics (how many of you out there remember Triplex autoland?) but I have always been an equal enthusiast for stick and rudder skills.

For those of you who rely on the automatics can I ask you when you last looked at your MEL?

For example, my MEL tells me that I can despatch without autopilots and flight directors. It doesn't happen very often but it DOES happen.

What am I to tell the folks that want to go from A to B when I don't like this scenario?

"I'm sorry folks but I can't fly the thing".

All of my F/Os are eager to handfly which is just as well, for I recently did 5 sectors without automatics or flight directors in not very nice weather with a superb F/O who could fly the arse off a lot of you out there.

Incidentally, the longest sector I ever did sans autopliot was LGW - LAX.

Hazehoe,

What's the point of your post?? Are you a little pissed off that other people get a job and you don't?

If i where you would be spending some more time surfing the internet for pilot vacancies. If you paid some more attention you would have seen a fair share of vacancies where UK airlines (Brittania,BA,Monarch, etc.) ask for people with experience. And according to yourself you have got a lot of experience.

I have seen a few senior pilots whose manual skills could do with some improvement. And these people had the stick and rudder experience. But it's far easier to rely on the automatics and read the newspaper. On the other hand i have seen several low houred F/O's flying a single engine manual ils perfectly down to the limits.

FT.

Haven t read all 8 pages of replies to the initial statement, so if I repeat what has been said already I apologise.

I personally came out of a good british flying school located under 'kidli' with 149h total flying time and 80h sim and went straight on a 146.

This aircraft's automation is fairly limited but I never felt that my 'modern' training hadn t prepared me to hand fly this aircraft for most critical phases of flight from the first day I started.

You can obviously argue about the extend of 'flying skills' but at the end of the day you re just flying another aircraft, it s not brainsurgery.

Happy Landings

Flying Torquewrench

Thank you for your advise,i will pay better attention.

:zzz:

What a wonderful thread - just like the good old days of Pprune!

However, in safety terms, there never were any good old days of aviation. It was always worse. And I'm not quite sure what Irish Steve means when he says "but the accident rate for serious accidents is still there" - there's a rate all right, and it's lower than it's ever been!

There are so many issues being raised here, it's hard to know what to talk about. But I'm going to go for two:first,saying you're not hand-flying an Airbus when you're... well, hand-flying it - just doesn't make sense. It's different is all - and if you don't understand what's happening then you may hurt yourself as has been proved. (But much less likely than in days of yore.)

And I'm impressed by the tiny number of posts slagging the bean-counters. For those couple that did, yup - automation is about money. I've never heard anyone suggest otherwise.

But that does take us to an interesting question (at least it's interesting on a British public holiday when you have time on your hands) - which is, how much of each safety gain should we bank and take the cash savings, and how much should we take as safety savings and no financial benefit?

For example, re EROPS (please don't let this degenerate into an EROPS debate saga) - we say engines are about 40 times more reliable than in DC-6-era. So we will permit you to to fly further from a single-engine div. That's purely financial - you could say, "fantastic, so transoceianic crossings are 40x safer and the operating cost has to stay the same". What's reasonable?

On the previous page, Jw411 says I’m assuming that was in the days before RVSM. And at what altitude did you fly the sector, 411? I thought it was a requirement to have an operable Alt Hold function to be able to flight plan at levels above FL210? Or is that just an Ozmate rule? (Can’t say I’ve ever needed to check the MEL on that point in recent years.)

Myself, I’ve done SIN-DRW-RIC (Sydney) without an AP – below F210 – and have to say it would have been an absolute *** drag for the two of us (6+ hours each sector) but for the fact that we just happened to have an old ex-Spitfire pilot RAF Group Captain among the pax who was tickled pink to be invited to hand fly the aircraft for an hour or so in the cruise on each sector to give us (=me, the co-pilot) a break. Have to say that the old bugger had it nailed, too. Hardly wavered in heading or height. (There are probably rules preventing a captain from doing that today.)

Back to today, I have to agree that the automatics have undoubtedly improved safety, just as the procedures that today allow (insist) you engage the autopilot quite soon after suffering a major failure allow the pilot to concentrate more on resolving the problem rather than using a goodly percentage of his brain function to hand fly the non-normal, (as we always had to demonstrate in PPCs for the first 20 years of my career).

Going back to my very early days of flying, I remember an incident that clearly illustrates how much things have changed. (As I resist sounding like the Three Yorkshiremen), in those days, the autopilot was considered a luxury (looxuuurry!), and we mere co-pilots very rarely got a sector. Prior to doing my Herc endorsement, I was supernumerary on a Butterworth service and the captain, the USAF exchange officer, gave the co-pilot the sector northbound out of Darwin. The co-pilot did the takeoff and plugged the autopilot in at around 2,000’ (that’s 2 thousand, not 2 hundred feet). The captain told him he was taking over, saying that if the cojo didn’t want to fly the sector, he’d do it himself.

It was the last sector the co-pilot was offered on the trip.