Auto pilot use
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Duncan BC Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My vote goes to 411A and Burger.
Capt. Stable... why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not? With EFIS you don't even have to scan as we did in the days of round dials. I am prepared to hand fly anywhere any time. Whether I chose to in any given circumstance is another matter. IMHO automation has increased the workload in many cases. This discussion seems to be split on continental lines.
Capt. Stable... why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not? With EFIS you don't even have to scan as we did in the days of round dials. I am prepared to hand fly anywhere any time. Whether I chose to in any given circumstance is another matter. IMHO automation has increased the workload in many cases. This discussion seems to be split on continental lines.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: here to eternity
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not?
When the automatics are engaged, they fly the aircraft. PF monitors the automatics. When PF is flying, he needs to be monitored. The only person on a 2-crew flight deck to do that is the PNF.
It appears to me that, across the pond in the former colonies, the culture is much more one in which the Captain is God, and woe betide any FO who gets uppity and wants to monitor what the skipper is doing.
In Europe, we have realised that, in order to ensure flight safety, a rather more modern concept of crew interaction is needed - i.e., one which takes into account the physiology and psychology of human interaction. To this end, it is understood that the flight crew are a team. It is not a regimental officer's mess, where decisions get handed down from on high, and in which you don't question your orders.
Pilots make mistakes, whichever side they're sitting on. Part of the other guy's job is to trap those mistakes. To this end, crew interaction is needed. This entails CRM. Good CRM implies that you don't bog the other guy down with needless extra work just when he's at his busiest just because you fancy playing.
Ralph, if you really think that automation has increased the workload, then you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Duncan BC Canada
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My, my, you do get wound up over there don't you. Well I have my asbesyos suit on so fire away. You really should lighten up a little. This is a serious issue and requires serious debate.
The PNF should monitor the PF at all times and vis versa. Good CRM requires it. I refer you to the Eastern accident where the good old automation flew them into the Everglades.
I stand by my contention that automation increases workload in many cases. There is a vast body of scientfic literature out there to support this view. You might want to read the accident reports on the British Midlands 737 incident and AA Cali to see just how far down the garden path automation can lead you.
Automation is just another club in your bag; to be used when appropriate and discarded when not.
The PNF should monitor the PF at all times and vis versa. Good CRM requires it. I refer you to the Eastern accident where the good old automation flew them into the Everglades.
I stand by my contention that automation increases workload in many cases. There is a vast body of scientfic literature out there to support this view. You might want to read the accident reports on the British Midlands 737 incident and AA Cali to see just how far down the garden path automation can lead you.
Automation is just another club in your bag; to be used when appropriate and discarded when not.
The Captain on the Brit Midland 737 manually flew the aircraft after the engine failure (see official report)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...cst?n=5236&l=4
and the Eastern accident occurred because nobody looked after the shop, during troubleshooting. (with four people on the flightdeck!)
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...cst?n=5236&l=4
and the Eastern accident occurred because nobody looked after the shop, during troubleshooting. (with four people on the flightdeck!)
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah yes, Cali and AA, an interesting study of how not to operate, and expect to survive.
Using automation, the crew decides to alter the approach sequence at the last minute, inserts a waypoint which they think is correct (but the database proves 'em wrong), ignores very basic raw data information, and descends into a hill, with go-around thrust selected/speed brakes extended.
Absolutely no planning or forethought whatsoever.
Autopilot use is fine, and on more modern types is highly recommended for ease of operation, but you gotta remember...garbage in, garbage out with the FMS/FMC.
Far too many 'new generation' guys expect the machine to never fail/always be correct.
Sadly, is does fail...and you have to pay attention.
Using automation, the crew decides to alter the approach sequence at the last minute, inserts a waypoint which they think is correct (but the database proves 'em wrong), ignores very basic raw data information, and descends into a hill, with go-around thrust selected/speed brakes extended.
Absolutely no planning or forethought whatsoever.
Autopilot use is fine, and on more modern types is highly recommended for ease of operation, but you gotta remember...garbage in, garbage out with the FMS/FMC.
Far too many 'new generation' guys expect the machine to never fail/always be correct.
Sadly, is does fail...and you have to pay attention.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Who can say?
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA Cali - A striking example of how important it is to keep all your skills brushed up - especially those to do with the complexities (on occasions) of the automatics. Unless you understand how to use them, and use them properly, they will rise up and bite you.
They are tools, to be used to an end. If they don't perform the task required, dump them. If they lighten the load at a time when there is much to do and a short time in which to do it, then use them. Don't scorn them because of some outdated idea that only wusses fly on A/P, and "in the old days we used to hand-fly 200 tons of aircraft through hurricanes with total blackout on the ground and land on a 60 ft runway in less than zero/zero visibility - THAT was flying, son!"
I'm not quite sure why Eastern came up - that was nothing to do with hand-flying.
In the case of the BM 737, the first thing the skipper did was to disconnect the autopilot. He therefore occupied himself unnecessarily with handflying instead of analysing the problem and solving it. He was far less able, therefore, to carry out a full scan of the engine instruments. Who knows - he might actually have spotted the vibration indicator going off the clock...
They are tools, to be used to an end. If they don't perform the task required, dump them. If they lighten the load at a time when there is much to do and a short time in which to do it, then use them. Don't scorn them because of some outdated idea that only wusses fly on A/P, and "in the old days we used to hand-fly 200 tons of aircraft through hurricanes with total blackout on the ground and land on a 60 ft runway in less than zero/zero visibility - THAT was flying, son!"
I'm not quite sure why Eastern came up - that was nothing to do with hand-flying.
In the case of the BM 737, the first thing the skipper did was to disconnect the autopilot. He therefore occupied himself unnecessarily with handflying instead of analysing the problem and solving it. He was far less able, therefore, to carry out a full scan of the engine instruments. Who knows - he might actually have spotted the vibration indicator going off the clock...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have to side with Blue Eagle and Capt. Stable on this one. Having watched from the jumpseat as a captain handflew the aircraft from cruise alttitude to landing, going into LHR, I was struck by two things. Firstly the accuracy of heading, speed and altitude was way below autopilot standards, and secondly the PNF was out of the loop for large parts of the approach, as his arms flew around the cockpit setting up headings,v/s, new radio frequencies etc.
This will become an ever increasing problem in the future as the pilots who were brought up with no flight directors, and Mickey Mouse autopilots retire,coupled with more and better automatics, which further errode flying skills.
The problem is exacerbated when the airline only flies wide-body long haul aircraft. The copilot only gets one leg in three, if he is lucky, and problems usually occur in the last two hundred feet, when it comes to planting the thing on the ground.
This will become an ever increasing problem in the future as the pilots who were brought up with no flight directors, and Mickey Mouse autopilots retire,coupled with more and better automatics, which further errode flying skills.
The problem is exacerbated when the airline only flies wide-body long haul aircraft. The copilot only gets one leg in three, if he is lucky, and problems usually occur in the last two hundred feet, when it comes to planting the thing on the ground.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manual flying without F/D in ALL types of airspace(if we can do it in ORD and DFW,you can do it in LHR for sure) should be practised periodically.Workload may well increase for the PNF but it keeps the mind sharp and is not a bad thing.
There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry.Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that,automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.
There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry.Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that,automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I totally agree with Rananim that flying skills have to be practised to maintain a level of competency, but I still maintain that ultra busy TMA's like LHR and ORD are the wrong venues for practise. Why pile on the workload when you should be keeping a close eye on conflicting traffic and the safe profile of the aircraft? It goes double for busy American fields like ORD, LAX,JFK and SFO, where runway changes seem to happen at the last minute, and controllers often make no allowance for track miles to run to touchdown when giving clearances, putting the onus on the pilot to comply or go around .
Look at the autopilot issue from a slightly different perspective. What were the expectations of the manufacturer and what now is allowed by the certification authority with respect to autopilot use?
Auto pilot use is mandated for most Cat 2 / 3 operations; for these, a specific design of autopilot is used, these systems do not or must not fail (at least not very often). Some RNP operations require autopilot use to achieve the required navigation accuracy. For all other operations most civil aviation authorities accept that pilots can achieve an acceptable flying standard i.e. safe. It is accept that autopilots will reduce workload, fatigue, etc. But when to use the autos is open to pilot judgement (a skill) and operator policy. The assumption is that either with of without autos the overall operation remains safe.
The semantics or choice of words in previous posts is of concern. When people talk about monitoring an autopilot they should mean monitor the input / output of the system, thus monitor the flight path of the aircraft. Did everyone mean this? It is an old adage that the NFP should monitor the FD during manual flight (older designs of FDs failed often), but the important issue was to monitor what the aircraft is doing – the flight path – how many aircraft hit the hillside with the crosshairs centred? This latter point is of direct relevance to NFPs of HUD drivers. An autopilot does not have a bad day, HUDs should not, but pilots often do. How does the NFP check how the pilot flying the HUD is performing? - Monitor the raw data / aircraft flight path.
Autopilots are designed with differing aims and with varying standards of reliability. Some fail op autos (Cat3b) may only be fail passive in the cruise, thus a different standard of monitoring (workload) will apply. Although the new big jets may have autopilots designed to handle emergency flight situations (engine out), many lesser systems were not. In accident reports it is often these systems that have caught out the crew. What better way of getting the feel of the aircraft by hand flying after an engine failure; pitch trim feel is the feed back for airspeed, similarly, (secondary) so are the roll and yaw forces a cue to what the aircraft is doing. Monitoring is required during a V2 climb, but the urgent actions take place at a predetermined safe point; engine shut down should only require one confirmatory check from PF that the PNF has the correct engine. The subsequent actions are just that, subsequent to the shut down and in a time / priority scale conducive to monitoring safe flight. N.B. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Review and monitor (Agitae), in that order. NFP monitors the aviation, navigation, and participates in comms (in other actions take place inter-crew and external).
If a PF or operator believes that a NFP has to spend most of his time monitoring the PF or making MCP selections then there could be a misunderstanding of assumptions made during design and certification of that aircraft. This disparity may imply that the licensing standard of the crew is insufficient for that type of operation, that the individual is ‘just not sharp’, that there is a lack of trust between crewmembers (CRM / human factors), or that the design of SOPs do not match those intended by the manufacturer.
One of the communication gaps in our industry is between what one part of an authority has certificated (manufacture’s design) and what the other part of the authority approves for operation. I agree with the professionals in our industry that the lack of skill (in whatever form) is a threat to the very good safety record that we enjoy; but if we are unhappy about a particular skill then raise the issue within your operation, or with your authority. Unless these concerns are aired formally then any differences in the assumptions made during design and about operating aircraft will go unchallenged, and if so, then there could be a real risk to safety.
Auto pilot use is mandated for most Cat 2 / 3 operations; for these, a specific design of autopilot is used, these systems do not or must not fail (at least not very often). Some RNP operations require autopilot use to achieve the required navigation accuracy. For all other operations most civil aviation authorities accept that pilots can achieve an acceptable flying standard i.e. safe. It is accept that autopilots will reduce workload, fatigue, etc. But when to use the autos is open to pilot judgement (a skill) and operator policy. The assumption is that either with of without autos the overall operation remains safe.
The semantics or choice of words in previous posts is of concern. When people talk about monitoring an autopilot they should mean monitor the input / output of the system, thus monitor the flight path of the aircraft. Did everyone mean this? It is an old adage that the NFP should monitor the FD during manual flight (older designs of FDs failed often), but the important issue was to monitor what the aircraft is doing – the flight path – how many aircraft hit the hillside with the crosshairs centred? This latter point is of direct relevance to NFPs of HUD drivers. An autopilot does not have a bad day, HUDs should not, but pilots often do. How does the NFP check how the pilot flying the HUD is performing? - Monitor the raw data / aircraft flight path.
Autopilots are designed with differing aims and with varying standards of reliability. Some fail op autos (Cat3b) may only be fail passive in the cruise, thus a different standard of monitoring (workload) will apply. Although the new big jets may have autopilots designed to handle emergency flight situations (engine out), many lesser systems were not. In accident reports it is often these systems that have caught out the crew. What better way of getting the feel of the aircraft by hand flying after an engine failure; pitch trim feel is the feed back for airspeed, similarly, (secondary) so are the roll and yaw forces a cue to what the aircraft is doing. Monitoring is required during a V2 climb, but the urgent actions take place at a predetermined safe point; engine shut down should only require one confirmatory check from PF that the PNF has the correct engine. The subsequent actions are just that, subsequent to the shut down and in a time / priority scale conducive to monitoring safe flight. N.B. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Review and monitor (Agitae), in that order. NFP monitors the aviation, navigation, and participates in comms (in other actions take place inter-crew and external).
If a PF or operator believes that a NFP has to spend most of his time monitoring the PF or making MCP selections then there could be a misunderstanding of assumptions made during design and certification of that aircraft. This disparity may imply that the licensing standard of the crew is insufficient for that type of operation, that the individual is ‘just not sharp’, that there is a lack of trust between crewmembers (CRM / human factors), or that the design of SOPs do not match those intended by the manufacturer.
One of the communication gaps in our industry is between what one part of an authority has certificated (manufacture’s design) and what the other part of the authority approves for operation. I agree with the professionals in our industry that the lack of skill (in whatever form) is a threat to the very good safety record that we enjoy; but if we are unhappy about a particular skill then raise the issue within your operation, or with your authority. Unless these concerns are aired formally then any differences in the assumptions made during design and about operating aircraft will go unchallenged, and if so, then there could be a real risk to safety.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now where were we......
400 hour pilot, building hours, flying rubber dog sh1t out of nowhereville in a twin piston cessna.
Piston, turbo, need to be babied, full manual, six levers (rigged not to sit flush at the same settings) and two cowl flap levers (in guaranteed to induce dis-orientation place).
Autopilot last serviced in 1977, unusual personality, has mind of its own...best used only in VMC, so you can catch it when it disconnects at an inappropriate moment...
Co-pilot....absent again...
Paper charts, dim lights, no GPS, only one operational VOR, no DME, AI sits 2 deg off level when wings level, need to remember that in IMC to avoid constant course corrections
IMC, no radar (of any sort), unintelligable ATC, rain (lots of it) popping circuit breakers, try to sort the problem from memory while keeping the A/C right way up, left bus bar disconnects again dammit !!!, I wish those engineers would fix the 30 year old electrics properly, fuel and engine guages not working now...start doing complex fuel calculations in head...
Start humming... three wheels on my wagon......
Sorry, just a brief foray in to the world of the low hours time building pilot, now that i am back in big boy reality land, please tell me that one about 21st century automated multi crewed jets being dangerous to hand fly ??
400 hour pilot, building hours, flying rubber dog sh1t out of nowhereville in a twin piston cessna.
Piston, turbo, need to be babied, full manual, six levers (rigged not to sit flush at the same settings) and two cowl flap levers (in guaranteed to induce dis-orientation place).
Autopilot last serviced in 1977, unusual personality, has mind of its own...best used only in VMC, so you can catch it when it disconnects at an inappropriate moment...
Co-pilot....absent again...
Paper charts, dim lights, no GPS, only one operational VOR, no DME, AI sits 2 deg off level when wings level, need to remember that in IMC to avoid constant course corrections
IMC, no radar (of any sort), unintelligable ATC, rain (lots of it) popping circuit breakers, try to sort the problem from memory while keeping the A/C right way up, left bus bar disconnects again dammit !!!, I wish those engineers would fix the 30 year old electrics properly, fuel and engine guages not working now...start doing complex fuel calculations in head...
Start humming... three wheels on my wagon......
Sorry, just a brief foray in to the world of the low hours time building pilot, now that i am back in big boy reality land, please tell me that one about 21st century automated multi crewed jets being dangerous to hand fly ??
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So then Robmac A totally unairworthy aircraft in IMC, all the faults well known to you and yet you continued, (hours building is NO excuse), very impressive, I think not!
The possible 'danger' of hand flying in today's more complicated machinery in very busy controlled airspace is that you are deliberately eroding the safety margins by not taking full advantage of all the assistance offered to you, a bit like wearing a life jacket but not bothering to inflate it.
One can imagine the manufactures response after an accident; "Had the pilot(s) taken advantage of all the flying aids offered within the aircraft this accident need not have happened", one can then imagine the insurers response!
Hopefully your post was 'tongue in cheek'?
The possible 'danger' of hand flying in today's more complicated machinery in very busy controlled airspace is that you are deliberately eroding the safety margins by not taking full advantage of all the assistance offered to you, a bit like wearing a life jacket but not bothering to inflate it.
One can imagine the manufactures response after an accident; "Had the pilot(s) taken advantage of all the flying aids offered within the aircraft this accident need not have happened", one can then imagine the insurers response!
Hopefully your post was 'tongue in cheek'?
Last edited by BlueEagle; 30th Sep 2003 at 20:43.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well spotted Blue Eagle.....
However, I guess you have never had the misfortune to hire some of the cr#p which is out there.....and believe me it is.
Of course it is always "airworthy" upon departure, and I kid you not, my little picture painted there is actually a conglomerate of problems that I have had to deal with on "airworthy" aircraft rented to me by highly recommended organisations.
I actually ended up giving up and buying my own aircraft after trying lots of different places and getting tired of these money grabbing, maintenance averse fuc8wits trying to kill me.
Of course if I was to learn at the hands of a high tech, fast track, money no object airline programme, and then find myself in the right seat of a money no object aircraft with everything but the flying done by some other flunkey, I wouldn't have had to put up with it would I.
My point is that there are an awful lot of spoiled people out there..
Anyway Eagle, I had you down for a pompous a55, but your last line saved you
Sh1t!!! I just noticed where you are from, and had to comment further. The aircraft I purchased was a VH with a brand new annual and "400 hour" Hawker re-mans. I had to do US30K work on it before it was safe to put on the N register.
Not only was much of the maintenance unsafe, some of it was actually highly illegal......and what did the CASA cartel have to say about it, not too much, just some whingeing pom who doesn't know the score, she'll be right mate...
Most frightening thing of all, it used to be an RPT aircraft !!!
So my friend from the land of OZ, I am sure with your experience and standing in the OZ aviation community, theres a lot of safety issues to get cracking with at home.
However, I guess you have never had the misfortune to hire some of the cr#p which is out there.....and believe me it is.
Of course it is always "airworthy" upon departure, and I kid you not, my little picture painted there is actually a conglomerate of problems that I have had to deal with on "airworthy" aircraft rented to me by highly recommended organisations.
I actually ended up giving up and buying my own aircraft after trying lots of different places and getting tired of these money grabbing, maintenance averse fuc8wits trying to kill me.
Of course if I was to learn at the hands of a high tech, fast track, money no object airline programme, and then find myself in the right seat of a money no object aircraft with everything but the flying done by some other flunkey, I wouldn't have had to put up with it would I.
My point is that there are an awful lot of spoiled people out there..
Anyway Eagle, I had you down for a pompous a55, but your last line saved you
Sh1t!!! I just noticed where you are from, and had to comment further. The aircraft I purchased was a VH with a brand new annual and "400 hour" Hawker re-mans. I had to do US30K work on it before it was safe to put on the N register.
Not only was much of the maintenance unsafe, some of it was actually highly illegal......and what did the CASA cartel have to say about it, not too much, just some whingeing pom who doesn't know the score, she'll be right mate...
Most frightening thing of all, it used to be an RPT aircraft !!!
So my friend from the land of OZ, I am sure with your experience and standing in the OZ aviation community, theres a lot of safety issues to get cracking with at home.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Unsafe? Highly Illegal?" That is dependent upon whose standards you measure it by. Some standard practices in some countries are illegal in others. And judging an entire industry on one example is just a little bit harsh, don't you think?
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Singapore
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dale,
Measured by CASA standards !!, how about drilling a hole in the casing of the prop governor and putting an non-designed screw in order to keep the prop from feathering inadvertently due to low oil pressures inside the casing.....just one example, I have five more on the same aircraft...and a few more on others I have flown.
The drilled hole by the way, rendered the casing completely unfit for re-manufacture.
Measured by CASA standards !!, how about drilling a hole in the casing of the prop governor and putting an non-designed screw in order to keep the prop from feathering inadvertently due to low oil pressures inside the casing.....just one example, I have five more on the same aircraft...and a few more on others I have flown.
The drilled hole by the way, rendered the casing completely unfit for re-manufacture.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: A Walmart near you.
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed very good points were posted in this topic.
I am writing an article about Loss of Flight Proficiency in Automated Cockpits to be presented in a national seminar of aeronautical sciences colleges in my country and this topic was very useful with the points cited.
Maybe you can give me some help in some points.
- How are autopilots listed on today's commercial airplanes MELs (Minimum Equipment List)? For example, if a 737 has all autopilots INOP, can it be dispatched? How about the A320?
- What is your company SOP regarding autopilot use? Is its use mandatory through all flight phases or is it based on pilot's discretion?
That would be it for now. Thanks a lot.
I am writing an article about Loss of Flight Proficiency in Automated Cockpits to be presented in a national seminar of aeronautical sciences colleges in my country and this topic was very useful with the points cited.
Maybe you can give me some help in some points.
- How are autopilots listed on today's commercial airplanes MELs (Minimum Equipment List)? For example, if a 737 has all autopilots INOP, can it be dispatched? How about the A320?
- What is your company SOP regarding autopilot use? Is its use mandatory through all flight phases or is it based on pilot's discretion?
That would be it for now. Thanks a lot.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look again at Rananim's post at the bottom of the previous page.
The second paragraph is, I feel, the most important point made this discussion.
SOP's, peer pressure and, especially, the tribal culture of particular types, fleets, bases or companies themselves conspire to create this situation. It was always strange to me when effo's were pleased and a little awed when it was hinted a little hand flying perfectly suited the next approach. If anything the thought of manually flying a SID seemed even more daunting. Most of all, no autothrottle seemed to be a relatively common line occurence that caused eyes to roll to the heavens.
Significantly Ops manuals always seem to have a catch all paragraph permitting manual flying as when, Etc. However there can be a culture where this is ignored for the majority of the time. We then find folks uncharacteristically and at, perhaps inopportune, times throwing away both A/P and FD because, 'they're due in the sim soon.'
Rob
The second paragraph is, I feel, the most important point made this discussion.
There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry. Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that, automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.
Having said that, automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.
Significantly Ops manuals always seem to have a catch all paragraph permitting manual flying as when, Etc. However there can be a culture where this is ignored for the majority of the time. We then find folks uncharacteristically and at, perhaps inopportune, times throwing away both A/P and FD because, 'they're due in the sim soon.'
Rob
Last edited by PPRuNe Towers; 21st Oct 2003 at 02:56.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Towers,
Very good points, well said.
Those companies who demand constant autopilot use are, in my opinion, a threat to aviation safety, and to the passengers which they carry.
Manual flying skills absolutely need to be properly maintained, and this positively includes busy TMA's.
IF pilots cannot handle manual flying without having an anxiety attack, they need to be brought up to speed, quick.
Either that or reassigned to a ground job.
Recall one post on the Tech Forum awhile back about a First Officer, who found it a ...'nightmare' to hand fly the aircraft after an autopilot failure.
Ask yourself, is this the guy you want at the pointy end flying you...or your family?
Very good points, well said.
Those companies who demand constant autopilot use are, in my opinion, a threat to aviation safety, and to the passengers which they carry.
Manual flying skills absolutely need to be properly maintained, and this positively includes busy TMA's.
IF pilots cannot handle manual flying without having an anxiety attack, they need to be brought up to speed, quick.
Either that or reassigned to a ground job.
Recall one post on the Tech Forum awhile back about a First Officer, who found it a ...'nightmare' to hand fly the aircraft after an autopilot failure.
Ask yourself, is this the guy you want at the pointy end flying you...or your family?