Use of autopilot for instrument rating tests
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of autopilot for instrument rating tests
In Australia it is acceptable to the regulatory authorities for the instrument rating test on airline aircraft to be conducted in the simulator and with full use of automatic pilot. There is a requirement however that one instrument approach must be conducted without use of the autopilot or without use of flight director. In other words you can still stay on automatics as long as the FD is not used. Although automation dependancy is a well recorded subject nevertheless the regulatory authorities regard that as a operator problem and nothing to do with the regulatory authority.
Talking to a pilot flying a Saab 340 for an Australian airline, he opined that if the pilots of his company were required to undergo the full instrument rating test without the use of the automatic pilot and flight director (in other words manual flight, raw data), he estimated that there would be a one hundred percent failure rate of the instrument rating test. He was not joking since the company concerned requires full automation from shortly after lift off to 500 ft on final even under CAVOk conditions.
If this pilot's forecast was accurate then even a fifty percent failure rate would be absymal and a sad reflection on airline policy on use of automation. It makes you wonder how pilots of airlines using jet equipment would fare if instrument rating tests were to be conducted using manual flying on raw data. Eventually pilot's pure flying skills would return to pre-automation days and perhaps that would be a good thing and reduce the number of accidents caused by loss of control in IMC? Discuss
Talking to a pilot flying a Saab 340 for an Australian airline, he opined that if the pilots of his company were required to undergo the full instrument rating test without the use of the automatic pilot and flight director (in other words manual flight, raw data), he estimated that there would be a one hundred percent failure rate of the instrument rating test. He was not joking since the company concerned requires full automation from shortly after lift off to 500 ft on final even under CAVOk conditions.
If this pilot's forecast was accurate then even a fifty percent failure rate would be absymal and a sad reflection on airline policy on use of automation. It makes you wonder how pilots of airlines using jet equipment would fare if instrument rating tests were to be conducted using manual flying on raw data. Eventually pilot's pure flying skills would return to pre-automation days and perhaps that would be a good thing and reduce the number of accidents caused by loss of control in IMC? Discuss
A37575, I am bemused by the situation which you describe. It is difficult to respond without understanding the authority’s position and particularly the details of any assumptions made.
Each operator has a right to an opinion, but if the situation is as described (and I’m not overly surprised) then this is a very sorry and potentially frightening situation for the industry.
It would be difficult to justify instrument flying competency from just one (manually flown) approach. However, if this is acceptable it could imply that only abnormal circumstances need be considered where higher accuracy procedural performance is sacrificed – but the operation must still be safe with respect to terrain etc. Such situations might require declaration of an emergency when flying IFR manually or only with FD (I have heard of that before).
Reduced instrument flying skills mean much more than the ability to fly; they are involved in situation awareness and decision making which are essential components of operations with or without autos / FD.
Each operator has a right to an opinion, but if the situation is as described (and I’m not overly surprised) then this is a very sorry and potentially frightening situation for the industry.
It would be difficult to justify instrument flying competency from just one (manually flown) approach. However, if this is acceptable it could imply that only abnormal circumstances need be considered where higher accuracy procedural performance is sacrificed – but the operation must still be safe with respect to terrain etc. Such situations might require declaration of an emergency when flying IFR manually or only with FD (I have heard of that before).
Reduced instrument flying skills mean much more than the ability to fly; they are involved in situation awareness and decision making which are essential components of operations with or without autos / FD.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can fully accept that manually flying an approach might be a required by a national authority to renew an instrument rating. I also think most European authorities have the same requirement but, and it's a big but, it will be done with the use of a flight director. But to my knowledge, there are few if any (modern) aircraft where an autopilot can be used without a flight director. And on my own aircraft, there is one piece of automation that can not be discarded, the Flight Path Vector.
For my own company (all jet), if the FD was not available the failure rate would certainly not be 100% but it would be greater than it is at the moment - without practice. So therefore, quite reasonably, we would insist on regular recurrent training for manual flying. But to train to pass a recurrent flight test is a complete waste of everybody's time and money.
As for a company requiring permanent automation - that is complete lunacy and such an operator needs a complete change of personnel at the top and the Flight Ops. inspector sacking.
But moving on -
Yes and No. To get to the level of manual skills required, virtually all flying would have to be manual, without A/P or F/D. But then we would rapidly increase the number of accidents in IMC until we got to the accident level we suffered before automation. The F/D and A/P were developed to make flying in IMC safer. The problems attributed to "lack of automation awareness" are where the design of the automation in display, performance and documentation terms is lacking. For example, my own aircraft has LNAV and VNAV functions. Using both together is a bit like using Douglas Adams' Improbability Drive. I'm convinced Honeywell have incorporated a random number generator in the VNAV. Basically, the thing is complete rubbish and should never, ever be relied upon, especially when IMC.
What may be lacking is proper monitoring of the automation. Pilots regularly fail to detect incorrect modes and excursions from the desired flight path early enough and therefore allow unintended outcomes to occur. It is in this where we have to spend the training money to improve standards.
For my own company (all jet), if the FD was not available the failure rate would certainly not be 100% but it would be greater than it is at the moment - without practice. So therefore, quite reasonably, we would insist on regular recurrent training for manual flying. But to train to pass a recurrent flight test is a complete waste of everybody's time and money.
As for a company requiring permanent automation - that is complete lunacy and such an operator needs a complete change of personnel at the top and the Flight Ops. inspector sacking.
But moving on -
Eventually pilot's pure flying skills would return to pre-automation days and perhaps that would be a good thing and reduce the number of accidents caused by loss of control in IMC?
What may be lacking is proper monitoring of the automation. Pilots regularly fail to detect incorrect modes and excursions from the desired flight path early enough and therefore allow unintended outcomes to occur. It is in this where we have to spend the training money to improve standards.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a sad state of affairs down there. You wouldn't believe how easy it is to get a type rating down there...makes Carlsbad look like NASA. They argue it's lack of simulators, but that crap.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: through the door, left
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for a company requiring permanent automation - that is complete lunacy and such an operator needs a complete change of personnel at the top and the Flight Ops. inspector sacking.
To be quite honest, with the capabilities of today's automation, the the weakest link is squishy bit strapped into the seat. Rather keep it from interfering too much. Sad but true. Today the main purpose of us is to manage the flight, the plane and the fellow crew members, rather than playing on the controls.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Today the main purpose of us is to manage the flight, the plane and the fellow crew members, rather than playing on the controls.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before my commercial flight test in a light twin with all the bells and whistles I was reminded that not only did I have to fly the aircraft manually, but also had to know how to use all the instruments within the scope of the license test. I know the opening thread specifically relates to IR tests, but isn't the principle the same? Competent at both manual handling and flight management?
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would think so, but when I had a Citation copilot shoot an approach into Tacoma Narrows, and he just followed the needles that didn't move....I asked him at about 1000 feet, what ILS frequency he was on....
He looked at his chart, then the panel, shook his head.
He never put in the frequency..
Later that night he told me he got his instrument rating in a plane with Garmin Moving maps...he just watched where the airplanes were on the moving map, and flew it over to the hold, flew it over to the IAP..
It's beyond sad right now.
If everyone was required to successfully shoot partial panel approaches at the airlines, the whole industry would shut down.
He looked at his chart, then the panel, shook his head.
He never put in the frequency..
Later that night he told me he got his instrument rating in a plane with Garmin Moving maps...he just watched where the airplanes were on the moving map, and flew it over to the hold, flew it over to the IAP..
It's beyond sad right now.
If everyone was required to successfully shoot partial panel approaches at the airlines, the whole industry would shut down.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: saint work
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We need to fly what we have..
I really liked the topic and its been a crucial debate for at least the last 20 years or so, we all flown and fly different equipments, noticed in the past few years things got more standardized as a result of the aviation authority work groups, which would makes the argument area smaller than it was years ago I should say. Safety standards regarding the ability to fly any airplane are the same, where the definition/perception of it might stand as a hurdle. In general, for us pilots, to satisfy the authority we need to demonstrate skills to operate the airplane which we are typed in the abnormal flights scenarios, the flight manual of any airplane is full of emergency procedures which would take the authorities a year before they can assure a single pilot is professional enough to deal with all these emergency situations, since time means money the operators became more sensible in dealing with the syllabus of the proficiency checks within the guidelines of the authorities. Is it sensible to check a pilot on ditching in water if the operation of the fleet is always local flights over a desert, or checking a pilot on ash encounter if the flights sectors never around any volcanoes area of risk. Same thing goes with a lot of other emergencies where aviation accidents statistics would nominate the need for such skill/knowledge test. Everybody does single engine/landing/go around procedures in the simulator checks but no more than 3% of the pilots in any organization (as a modest guess) have actually encountered out of the simulator. Sorry for the lengthy introduction, when it comes to manual flying or raw data instruments flying the same rules should apply, how often you or other operators lose the automation system or navigation computers/equipments? And how often during IMC? Is it really worth the time waste to incorporate it as a part of the proficiency check?. No reason for us to call certain regions of operators as being unsafely relaxed as they are calling us unrealistically strict. In my opinion instruments flying should be seen once every 3 years in the simulator as a practice and as a non failing item, for the Simulator check you should use all the normal equipments you use in your day to day flying and the check should be very realistic, other than this we are wasting our time.
My regards to all the participants
My regards to all the participants
Moderator
how often you or other operators lose the automation system or navigation computers/equipments? And how often during IMC?
Ah .. now, by inference, you're proposing a defacto certification change.
The design rules REQUIRE that any single important failure results in a VERY, VERY small chance that the aircraft will be lost. This is why, traditionally, we spend so much time on engine failures as, in the piston days, such were routine and the skillsets have been carried over to the much more reliable turbine world.
Now, if all is rosy with the aeroplane meandering along nicely in severe IMC down to the lowest minima and you have a failure in the automatics, you are postulating two decision paths ..
(a) the crew is competent on raw data hand flown stuff ... no real sweat ... other than for the crew at the time who would far rather that they had stayed in bed that day and that another crew were faced with the problem at hand ...
(b) the crew is incompetent on raw data etc ... the risk of hull loss is NOW VERY, VERY REAL. As a consequence you should be requiring in your argument that the risk of automatics failure is near vanishing small .. and we ALL know that such a premise is arrant nonsense.
Alternatively, the logical argument is that we shouldn't waste any time training for anything at all. Just treat flying like an arcade game down at the Mall where, if the gizmo rolls belly up, we can go get a beer and bemoan the fact that we have lost our money down the coin slot because we got shortchanged on the timer.
Ah .. now, by inference, you're proposing a defacto certification change.
The design rules REQUIRE that any single important failure results in a VERY, VERY small chance that the aircraft will be lost. This is why, traditionally, we spend so much time on engine failures as, in the piston days, such were routine and the skillsets have been carried over to the much more reliable turbine world.
Now, if all is rosy with the aeroplane meandering along nicely in severe IMC down to the lowest minima and you have a failure in the automatics, you are postulating two decision paths ..
(a) the crew is competent on raw data hand flown stuff ... no real sweat ... other than for the crew at the time who would far rather that they had stayed in bed that day and that another crew were faced with the problem at hand ...
(b) the crew is incompetent on raw data etc ... the risk of hull loss is NOW VERY, VERY REAL. As a consequence you should be requiring in your argument that the risk of automatics failure is near vanishing small .. and we ALL know that such a premise is arrant nonsense.
Alternatively, the logical argument is that we shouldn't waste any time training for anything at all. Just treat flying like an arcade game down at the Mall where, if the gizmo rolls belly up, we can go get a beer and bemoan the fact that we have lost our money down the coin slot because we got shortchanged on the timer.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
john, i know what you want to say and you are of course right, which is the main reason why my outfit still requires its pilots to use raw data manual flight as often as practicable in normal line operation.
However the example you used was pretty much the design standard for fail operational airplanes, and even the old fashioned 737 can cope on its own with any single failure during automatic approach and happily continue with its automatic landing and rollout. And raw data manual flight very close to the ground in 75m RVR weather is something i rather avoid.
Don't get me wrong, we have to demonstrate every six months we can do the usual manual flight OEI go-around and approach, and i would love to have the requirement back to do it raw data as well. However the last part was removed around 2 years ago after some regulator intervention that that isn't necessary and a too high failure rate would cost the TREs license.
However the example you used was pretty much the design standard for fail operational airplanes, and even the old fashioned 737 can cope on its own with any single failure during automatic approach and happily continue with its automatic landing and rollout. And raw data manual flight very close to the ground in 75m RVR weather is something i rather avoid.
Don't get me wrong, we have to demonstrate every six months we can do the usual manual flight OEI go-around and approach, and i would love to have the requirement back to do it raw data as well. However the last part was removed around 2 years ago after some regulator intervention that that isn't necessary and a too high failure rate would cost the TREs license.
Moderator
I may have misunderstood the earlier poster's intent. I presumed he/she was looking at the case where the automatics fail in a major way leaving the crew on their own.
Redundant part failures are in a different arena but I still worry about the crew which is not able to do it by basics ...
Redundant part failures are in a different arena but I still worry about the crew which is not able to do it by basics ...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do agree there, and that is indeed a case where training, and flight ops culture plays a very large role and as far as i know regulators on both sides of the atlantic are re-evaluating pilot training very carefully especially in regard to manual handling ability.
I am now totally terrified to fly with any commercial outfit !! After some 20,000 hours on old, newer and new aircraft I feel that you must surely retain the basic skills of I/F! In every aircraft that I know there is always a basic minimum of "steam" instruments. We must be able to use them !!
Moderator
I am now totally terrified to fly with any commercial outfit !!
I shouldn't think that such is necessary. The stats still show that one is rather more likely to get to B these days than in days of yore. I tend to be far more terrified of driving through the city to get to the aerodrome for the flight than the flight, itself.
However, for the sake of a few dollars in recurrent training, I amuse myself with the philosophical desirability that one ought to train for something often so simple as having to execute a handflown raw data approach to the flare .. with reasonable currency generally a routine (if sometimes sweaty) exercise. From watching numerous such exercises in the box, the non-proficient pilot is far more at risk of having significant problems with the exercise. Having reasonably current stick and rudder I/F skills on Type then permit more likely scenarios to be handled without any crew distress.
Doesn't discourage my sitting in the back from A to B .. but I do prefer knowing that the folk up front are reasonably able to do it by basics as well as buttons.
I shouldn't think that such is necessary. The stats still show that one is rather more likely to get to B these days than in days of yore. I tend to be far more terrified of driving through the city to get to the aerodrome for the flight than the flight, itself.
However, for the sake of a few dollars in recurrent training, I amuse myself with the philosophical desirability that one ought to train for something often so simple as having to execute a handflown raw data approach to the flare .. with reasonable currency generally a routine (if sometimes sweaty) exercise. From watching numerous such exercises in the box, the non-proficient pilot is far more at risk of having significant problems with the exercise. Having reasonably current stick and rudder I/F skills on Type then permit more likely scenarios to be handled without any crew distress.
Doesn't discourage my sitting in the back from A to B .. but I do prefer knowing that the folk up front are reasonably able to do it by basics as well as buttons.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slightly off topic, but steam instruments are a thing of the past, even for standby instruments. One single EFIS like standby PFD contains all the info needed and is actually easier to use, still no FD on it so you need basic flying skills.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Where it's Too Cold
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue is really about work load...can your typical pilot hand fly an aircraft and not be overloaded during that task that he can still determine where he is, where he needs to go, and get there safely..
As the automation has increased, the lower pilot standard is to accept a lower and lower cockpit workload...make it two pilots and everyone is clamoring to be the guy that gets to move the heading bug....
So it's no wonder that with all the automation..the FE has gone bye bye and people consider dumping the FO who has become a seat warmer.
Trust me..if it's all about redundancy now...just throwing enough people or gear in the cockpit to make sure the flight makes it to it's destination...then airliners will go single pilot with a UAV pilot on the ground monitoring numerous flights ready to take over, should the heart monitor of one of the captains flat lines, or he doesn't respond on cue.
As the automation has increased, the lower pilot standard is to accept a lower and lower cockpit workload...make it two pilots and everyone is clamoring to be the guy that gets to move the heading bug....
So it's no wonder that with all the automation..the FE has gone bye bye and people consider dumping the FO who has become a seat warmer.
Trust me..if it's all about redundancy now...just throwing enough people or gear in the cockpit to make sure the flight makes it to it's destination...then airliners will go single pilot with a UAV pilot on the ground monitoring numerous flights ready to take over, should the heart monitor of one of the captains flat lines, or he doesn't respond on cue.