Everyone acknowledges in principle that automation dependency is a bad thing, but almost all of my captains look at me funny when I ask to handfly all the way to altitude. The senior is instructor also pushes automation very hard. +1 for learning to trim. That is indeed key, and very few of aforementioned captains ever touch it. Re automation making the industry safer, that is true to a point, but still the problem of dependency remains. Also, a lot of the improvement in the accident rate is down to such things as EGPWS, TCAS, and precision approaches, rather than autopilots. I was lucky. I never even saw a FD or had a functional, approach capable AP until I had 8000 hrs. |
Originally Posted by Caboclo
(Post 10591342)
Everyone acknowledges in principle that automation dependency is a bad thing, but almost all of my captains look at me funny when I ask to handfly all the way to altitude. The senior is instructor also pushes automation very hard. +1 for learning to trim. That is indeed key, and very few of aforementioned captains ever touch it. Re automation making the industry safer, that is true to a point, but still the problem of dependency remains. Also, a lot of the improvement in the accident rate is down to such things as EGPWS, TCAS, and precision approaches, rather than autopilots. I was lucky. I never even saw a FD or had a functional, approach capable AP until I had 8000 hrs. |
"+1 for learning to trim. That is indeed key, and very few of aforementioned captains ever touch it."
Why don't airline Captains mention trimming? Seriously? Airline Captains have to tell new hires with an average of 5,000+ hrs to use the trim? We're doomed if that's something that they don't know by the time they get to an airline. |
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10591428)
I look funny at pilots that hand fly all the way up, and then leave the AP on till 500ft on the approach. Climbing is easy, just keep the nose pointed up, once clean no more trimming required, and there is (mostly) no requirement to hit TOC at a specific spot. Hand flying the arrival takes a lot more skill, also, if the FD is on you might as well keep the AP on..... |
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10591428)
I look funny at pilots that hand fly all the way up, and then leave the AP on till 500ft on the approach. Climbing is easy, just keep the nose pointed up, once clean no more trimming required, and there is (mostly) no requirement to hit TOC at a specific spot. Hand flying the arrival takes a lot more skill, also, if the FD is on you might as well keep the AP on..... |
Originally Posted by cappt
(Post 10591610)
It's certainly better then never, keeps the scan going. Approaches can get really busy in the big airports and hand flying then really increases the workload, especially for the PM. At the smaller airports or non busy times have at it.
|
Originally Posted by misd-agin
(Post 10591607)
My PR for 'hand flying', without touching the yoke, is 6000' or 7000'(?). Nothing like talking about the need for more guys to hand fly...and not touching the yoke for thousands of feet. In the last 250+ hrs I've seen one FO turn the auto throttles off on arrival. One. They are not required to keep the auto throttles on. The degrading of skills isn't always someone else's fault.
|
Originally Posted by hans brinker
(Post 10591743)
Yeah, I mostly go AT off at TOD, AP off below 10K, FD off when I get vectors (not when crazy busy/new FO/wx/mountains, aso). From the feedback I get, I'm one of the few, and my company is very supportive of handflying.
I often encourage the FOs I fly with to hand fly and very few of them are interested. I guess most of them are scared of the QAR. That’s pretty sad. And then they wounder why they struggle in the sim in direct law. :} |
The FAA is spot on, being within three years of mandatory retirement I have seen a gradual erosion of flying skills to usually based on company culture. Thankfully I work for a company that encourages manual flying in appropriate situations but it would seem that the culture from previous companies hangs on and the First Officers can tell a Captains previous company from the way he flys. By restrictions on the way first officers fly the aircraft and over reliance on automatics captains are eroding the skills of their FO’s and restricting the appropriate use of automation. Blind and unthinking following of SoP’s is also having the same effect SoP’s are a useful tool but they also have to be appropriately applied. |
RVSM
How many of today’s pilots have actually hand flown their ‘frame at cruise altitude at max AUW for that level? Since RVSM the practice has been discouraged or downright forbidden so when the autopilot quits or something else throws the aircraft at the startled crew to handfly then all hell and worse will break out. I don’t believe the initial training in a simulator can possibly reproduce the ‘bungee cord effect’’ and the IAS v TAS effect. Therefore by definition the current crop of “flightdeck managers” is incapable of and not qualified to operate. |
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
(Post 10593520)
How many of today’s pilots have actually hand flown their ‘frame at cruise altitude at max AUW for that level? Since RVSM the practice has been discouraged or downright forbidden so when the autopilot quits or something else throws the aircraft at the startled crew to handfly then all hell and worse will break out. I don’t believe the initial training in a simulator can possibly reproduce the ‘bungee cord effect’’ and the IAS v TAS effect. Therefore by definition the current crop of “flightdeck managers” is incapable of and not qualified to operate. |
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
(Post 10593520)
Therefore by definition the current crop of “flightdeck managers” is incapable of and not qualified to operate. Have hand flown well above the top of RVSM airspace, long distance at FL510 and that also takes some accuracy, but it is still just a plane. It's just a plane. |
Definition.
If none of the flight deck operatives have actually hand flown their craft at max AUW for the cruise altitude then are they really qualified so to do? If experienced pre-RVSM skipper is in the bog, it’s the low hours inexperienced RHS occupant who has to sort the problem. Yes, few of us have had a real EFATO but we cope using the right sim techniques so I won’t take that as a valid argument. And how often is this scenario practised in the sim? Probably never since initial type rating. However, every day the ‘frame is in this hostile and dangerous environment for hours on end close to coffin corner and the crop of LOC at altitude accidents possibly had such unfamiliar “feel” attributes which made life more difficult or impossible. Tin hat on...... |
RVSM
Well that stopped the conversation?! C’mon skygods of Europe, why don’t you ‘fess up that few if any have handflown the ‘frame at max cruise AUW at optimum/max altitude? And can someone please confirm that either company procedures or the equivalent of the original ANO prohibit such extreme activity? All I can recall from too many years ago was that “the book” said “thou shalt have an APFDS capable of.... in RVSM Airspace...” which I suspect gave rise to the old wives’ tale that “thou shalt not handfly in RVSM...”. I’d be very happy to be corrected, quoting chapter&verse as to the correct practice as per EASA or CAA or any other ‘reputable’ authority. Until then my assertion stands re today’s crews not being capable or in current practice for what should be a normal handling task, performed IAW the privileges of your Instrument Rating! |
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
(Post 10596108)
C’mon skygods of Europe, why don’t you ‘fess up that few if any have handflown the ‘frame at max cruise AUW at optimum/max altitude? |
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
(Post 10596108)
Well that stopped the conversation?! C’mon skygods of Europe, why don’t you ‘fess up that few if any have handflown the ‘frame at max cruise AUW at optimum/max altitude? And can someone please confirm that either company procedures or the equivalent of the original ANO prohibit such extreme activity? All I can recall from too many years ago was that “the book” said “thou shalt have an APFDS capable of.... in RVSM Airspace...” which I suspect gave rise to the old wives’ tale that “thou shalt not handfly in RVSM...”. I’d be very happy to be corrected, quoting chapter&verse as to the correct practice as per EASA or CAA or any other ‘reputable’ authority. Until then my assertion stands re today’s crews not being capable or in current practice for what should be a normal handling task, performed IAW the privileges of your Instrument Rating! |
RVSM “prohibition”.
Thanks for the replies from enthusiastic handflyers! I still want to know if anyone has heard of a RVSM restriction by EU or western European airlines on hand flying above FL240? I hope it was then and is now a myth, but I recall the noises being made when I was still in seat 0A until retirement. Curious that there’s not been a chorus of voices saying it’s rubbish and quoting chapter&verse so the jury is still out...... |
In RVSM airspace the autopilot (specifically, the altitude control system) should be used during cruise, in Europe and elsewhere.
RVSM In-flight procedures. An automatic altitude-control system should be operative and engaged during level cruise, except when circumstances such as the need to re-trim the aircraft or turbulence require disengagement. In any event, adherence to cruise altitude should be done by reference to one of the two primary altimeters. Following loss of the automatic height-keeping function, any consequential restrictions will need to be observed. |
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
(Post 10597007)
Thanks for the replies from enthusiastic handflyers! I still want to know if anyone has heard of a RVSM restriction by EU or western European airlines on hand flying above FL240? I hope it was then and is now a myth, but I recall the noises being made when I was still in seat 0A until retirement. Curious that there’s not been a chorus of voices saying it’s rubbish and quoting chapter&verse so the jury is still out...... Appendix 4 of AC 91-85, Section "5. In-flight Procedures" |
My questions to all the folk saying "we were right all these years, we saw this coming"...
Yes, but what did you DO about it? How many of you challenged your airlines leadership? How many of you went on strike in protest at the changing standards? How many of you ignored changing SOPs and encouraged manual handling for new recruits regardless? How many of you called BS on the ATOs and went to the press to highlight the dangers? What did you do to stop airlines from focusing on the bottom line and invest more in sim time and URT? What have you done to shake up airline recruitment? What have you done to help lower flight training costs and the barrier to entry for new pilots? How many flight hours have you subsidised to help self funded pilots gain more manual handling practise before they went down the airline route? What did you personally do to stop this situation from occurring? I'm genuinely asking out of interest and curiosity. Mostly because there seems to be a touch of millennial bashing going on here. You forget, the situation which exists today was not created by the recruits/MPL grads themselves, they are a product of the environment they're coming into. And don't forget the personal risks they've taken and sacrifices made to get there. Nobody is going to rock the boat and lose their seat, especially new recruits. It doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it acceptable but we all have a part to play here. So my challenge back to you is what have you done to improve the situation we now find ourselves in using all your wisdom, experience and influence? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:38. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.