Another angle on automation dependancy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another angle on automation dependancy
Culling through old Ops manuals in my shed and discovered a 1998 version Germania Boeing 737-700 company operations manual. Under the heading of CRUISE PROCEDURE at page NP.8.1 January 01, 1998 and under the sub-heading MANUAL FLIGHT is states: "Perform manual flight in exceptional circumstances only!" The exclamation mark was there, too.
Jesus wept! Although it was back in 1998, it proves irrevocably that there is at least one airline bringing up automation dependant zombies into the flight decks?
They walk among us...
Jesus wept! Although it was back in 1998, it proves irrevocably that there is at least one airline bringing up automation dependant zombies into the flight decks?
They walk among us...
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I may have you beat.
While living (and based) in Boston for a major airline (circa 1990), I made the mistake of talking to the professor occupying the boeing chair at M.I.T. (massachusetts institute of technology...where smart guys aren't smart enough).
He told me the idea was that any plane built from now on could be easily handled by someone with 250 hours and that skilled pilots were no longer required to fly big jets.
He said that Boeing wanted to be able to sell the new jets to any country, even one without a ready pilot cadres. And that mainly places with lots of oil could pay lots for the plane and not have to hire expats to fly them.
Of course, being quite happy flying the DC9 with virtually NO automation, I asked: what happens when the gadgets break and the plane is in trouble.
He said it wouldn't happen.
he said it wouldn't happen.
he said it wouldn't happen.
Dave
Dave
Dave
daisy, daisy give me your answer do, I'm half crazy all for the love of you...it won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage
but you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two.
will I dream???????
He told me the idea was that any plane built from now on could be easily handled by someone with 250 hours and that skilled pilots were no longer required to fly big jets.
He said that Boeing wanted to be able to sell the new jets to any country, even one without a ready pilot cadres. And that mainly places with lots of oil could pay lots for the plane and not have to hire expats to fly them.
Of course, being quite happy flying the DC9 with virtually NO automation, I asked: what happens when the gadgets break and the plane is in trouble.
He said it wouldn't happen.
he said it wouldn't happen.
he said it wouldn't happen.
Dave
Dave
Dave
daisy, daisy give me your answer do, I'm half crazy all for the love of you...it won't be a stylish marriage, I can't afford a carriage
but you'll look sweet upon the seat of a bicycle built for two.
will I dream???????
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Mercer Island WA
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From one who has many 1000s of hours flying, training, and testing modern jets, ranging from the 707 and DC9 era, through the very latest Seattle products, and also some of Toulouse's finest products, I can say with confidence that ...Prof. John (at MIT) is most well informed on these kinds of issues. He is correct in that virtually any of the modern jet transports are considerably easier to fly than say a DC3 or even a DC9, without failures, or with failures. For example, I'd rather take a 777 with an engine shut down, and a hydraulic system inop, all by myself, ...into any unfamiliar airport in Europe, Asia, or Africa, of your choice,... than to go back to flying a tiny Twin Beech into KORD, at night, in icing, or thunderstorms, on cargo runs, as I once did, for what seems like a 1000 years ago. So does flying now still require training and common sense? Of course. Does it depend on having the right skill set for the aircraft and mission? Of course. Do we need to do better in the airline industry for training and skill maintenance? Of Course. But do those observations necessarily make John's observations on modern flight deck design trends invalid? Of course NOT.
Of course, being quite happy flying the DC9 with virtually NO automation, I asked: what happens when the gadgets break and the plane is in trouble.
He said it wouldn't happen.
He said it wouldn't happen.
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Home
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'smart people'
It has been my experience that 'smart people' often fail to completely understand the problem they are keen to solve. GPWS, TCAS, Autoland, and FBW technology are welcome improvements, but do not allow the introduction of low time pilots without reducing overall safety.
Having flown DC-3s to B777s, I would say each aircraft has its difficulties, and (have personally witnessed) that the newer aircraft are NOT easier to fly by inexperienced pilots.
CK
Having flown DC-3s to B777s, I would say each aircraft has its difficulties, and (have personally witnessed) that the newer aircraft are NOT easier to fly by inexperienced pilots.
CK
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
In my experience of training low-time pilots on modern helicopters with a high level of automation, it is not the "flying" in the sense of moving the controls that is the problem; it is the very low levels of situational awareness and poor decision-making that stem from low experience levels that present the biggest competence issues. A fancy FMS and flight director do not necessarily help, they can just present further opportunities to make mistakes which will go unnoticed if the pilot does not fully appreciate what is happening.
As an IRE I have watched on countless occasions in the simulator, experienced Boeing captains attempting to fly an ILS in a 15 knot crosswind on raw data hand flying. No AP, FD or AT. The majority fail an instrument rating because they seems helpless in their instrument scan under these conditions.
On the other hand, allow them to conduct a coupled approach and they do a wonderful job of "monitoring" and the aircraft (not the pilot) flies to instrument rating limits. Would I be confident to have my family down the back on a dark and stormy ILS night with one of these automation dependant captains flying? No, I wouldn't.
Because if for some technical reason the automatics played up or were inadvertently wrongly programmed (and who hasn't done that on occasions?) then from what I have personally seen, these characters could not safely cope with basic manual instrument flying. And that is what concerns me with the headlong rush for still more automation.
On the other hand, allow them to conduct a coupled approach and they do a wonderful job of "monitoring" and the aircraft (not the pilot) flies to instrument rating limits. Would I be confident to have my family down the back on a dark and stormy ILS night with one of these automation dependant captains flying? No, I wouldn't.
Because if for some technical reason the automatics played up or were inadvertently wrongly programmed (and who hasn't done that on occasions?) then from what I have personally seen, these characters could not safely cope with basic manual instrument flying. And that is what concerns me with the headlong rush for still more automation.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an IRE I have watched on countless occasions in the simulator, experienced Boeing captains attempting to fly an ILS in a 15 knot crosswind on raw data hand flying. No AP, FD or AT. The majority fail an instrument rating because they seems helpless in their instrument scan under these conditions.
Last edited by de facto; 21st Nov 2012 at 06:42.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: in the shadows
Age: 48
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the heading of CRUISE PROCEDURE [...] is [sic] states: "Perform manual flight in exceptional circumstances only!"
So they say their pilots should use the autopilot in cruise. What do they say about manual flight in climb, approach and landing? What do other airlines say about manual flight in cruise?
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the concept is that if the gear does the flying, you have less pilot induced errors.
It's a strong case...but the problem is that experienced captains being passed up at the hiring stage for kids that lean on the gear is a risk mitigation decision of 'gear over salaries' that tends to bite the chief pilots/owners when the gear breaks, or big boy decisions need to be made.
It's a strong case...but the problem is that experienced captains being passed up at the hiring stage for kids that lean on the gear is a risk mitigation decision of 'gear over salaries' that tends to bite the chief pilots/owners when the gear breaks, or big boy decisions need to be made.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Europe.
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an IRE I have watched on countless occasions in the simulator, experienced Boeing captains attempting to fly an ILS in a 15 knot crosswind on raw data hand flying. No AP, FD or AT. The majority fail an instrument rating because they seems helpless in their instrument scan under these conditions.
So they say their pilots should use the autopilot in cruise. What do they say about manual flight in climb, approach and landing? What do other airlines say about manual flight in cruise?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can see no reason why hand flying in cruise would be necessary/beneficial. Straight and level is just straight and level anyway.
Which is exactly why the Air France crew crashed into the South Atlantic. They didn't know how to hand fly in IMC straight and level.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having recently had a case of 'i must fly' because nothing else was reliable, it brings home the need to preserve ones own flying capability.
I was intrigued when years ago I moved over to 737 from smaller stuff, that guys were putting the auto pilot in so quickly. Clean on the EFIS, before flaps up on the NG. I would happily (ignorantly) fly up to cruise level, until someone in the training department pointed out that we shouldn't hand fly above 20000/fl200. Preferably, 10000.
Why become a pilot if you don't want to fly? Was my question.
Imagine the fun when we lost A/T before departure. Suggested option was to return to stand, and get it fixed. We didn't. No reason not to push with a failed A/T, if its known about. Why not continue after taxi out, if it chooses then to fail. As it turned out, parts were unavailable for weeks, anyway.
By all means have the familiarity with the automatics to make best use of them, and how flch/lvlchg or V/S can be more use than VNAV at times. But not at the expense of being able to manually do it when it's required.
8/10 years on from when those aircraft were fairly new, or at least not so old, it could have been that I'd been letting my ability to fly it degrade, while simultaneously the fleets that I might fly have aged and degraded systems now exist as a consequence.
Which means more failures, even if fairly benign ones.
In an age when the emphasis is with minimising fuel burn due cost reasons, to be confronted with not only very limited time, but also technical problems that need a last minute manually flown, but still crew coordinated effort, then having the confidence in the skills that we developed when we eagerly joined this industry should be a matter of personal pride.
It also doesn't half make the next sim check easier if you don't have to spend time getting over the pilot induced oscillations incurred when you drop the automatics out.
(And now they are proposing cars that operate automatically. Boring!)
I was intrigued when years ago I moved over to 737 from smaller stuff, that guys were putting the auto pilot in so quickly. Clean on the EFIS, before flaps up on the NG. I would happily (ignorantly) fly up to cruise level, until someone in the training department pointed out that we shouldn't hand fly above 20000/fl200. Preferably, 10000.
Why become a pilot if you don't want to fly? Was my question.
Imagine the fun when we lost A/T before departure. Suggested option was to return to stand, and get it fixed. We didn't. No reason not to push with a failed A/T, if its known about. Why not continue after taxi out, if it chooses then to fail. As it turned out, parts were unavailable for weeks, anyway.
By all means have the familiarity with the automatics to make best use of them, and how flch/lvlchg or V/S can be more use than VNAV at times. But not at the expense of being able to manually do it when it's required.
8/10 years on from when those aircraft were fairly new, or at least not so old, it could have been that I'd been letting my ability to fly it degrade, while simultaneously the fleets that I might fly have aged and degraded systems now exist as a consequence.
Which means more failures, even if fairly benign ones.
In an age when the emphasis is with minimising fuel burn due cost reasons, to be confronted with not only very limited time, but also technical problems that need a last minute manually flown, but still crew coordinated effort, then having the confidence in the skills that we developed when we eagerly joined this industry should be a matter of personal pride.
It also doesn't half make the next sim check easier if you don't have to spend time getting over the pilot induced oscillations incurred when you drop the automatics out.
(And now they are proposing cars that operate automatically. Boring!)
Last edited by Shiny side down; 14th Nov 2012 at 12:31.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shiny -
You bring up a good point that has kinda stumped me for some time...guys that want a seat in a plane, but don't want to be pilots.
I mean you would think SOME of them would at least respect the ability to fly in the soup by themselves, or try to hand fly once in a while...
But it's the same thing over and over...wannabes...that neither want, nor aspire to have the experience, now clogging the system, pandering to chief pilots that want checklist and sops robots......so they are hiring on personality rather then skill...
So it's a rare thing to find peeps that just want to be 'good' at something...to raise the standard.....in any industry these days....where there seems to be backlash against those folks that desire to rise above....to stand out....
Personally I am tired of bitching about it....because I think social media has enabled and entitled this rising tide of mediocrity to have a voice that never did before...and now they have power, they get together, they make excuses, they cover each other...
The answer I think is to simply fly where you are needed rather then fight the system and try to wade through a battalion of slackers that neither care, respect, or desire to step up and try to change it from the inside.
I've pondered that the answer might reside in making planes that actually go fast again...where they are tougher to fly, where they are more dangerous...rather then continue to build sub mach docile aircraft that fly themselves. Seems we should all be flying something like the Concord now...and if that was the case, you wouldn't be putting kids in the cockpits flying Mach 3 at 60000 feet.
So maybe the answer lies in not dumbing down the gear anymore.
You bring up a good point that has kinda stumped me for some time...guys that want a seat in a plane, but don't want to be pilots.
I mean you would think SOME of them would at least respect the ability to fly in the soup by themselves, or try to hand fly once in a while...
But it's the same thing over and over...wannabes...that neither want, nor aspire to have the experience, now clogging the system, pandering to chief pilots that want checklist and sops robots......so they are hiring on personality rather then skill...
So it's a rare thing to find peeps that just want to be 'good' at something...to raise the standard.....in any industry these days....where there seems to be backlash against those folks that desire to rise above....to stand out....
Personally I am tired of bitching about it....because I think social media has enabled and entitled this rising tide of mediocrity to have a voice that never did before...and now they have power, they get together, they make excuses, they cover each other...
The answer I think is to simply fly where you are needed rather then fight the system and try to wade through a battalion of slackers that neither care, respect, or desire to step up and try to change it from the inside.
I've pondered that the answer might reside in making planes that actually go fast again...where they are tougher to fly, where they are more dangerous...rather then continue to build sub mach docile aircraft that fly themselves. Seems we should all be flying something like the Concord now...and if that was the case, you wouldn't be putting kids in the cockpits flying Mach 3 at 60000 feet.
So maybe the answer lies in not dumbing down the gear anymore.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: flightdeck/earlyhours commute
Posts: 199
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know. A scary paranoid thought might suggest that statistically everything is much more reliable, and much easier to operate, and therefore negates the need for a skilled person...
So o'leary will one day have his way
Experienced captains will evaporate through the top, not to be replaced. How could you get the experience to shift left in a single crew operation?
And slowly, by proxy or otherwise, we will slowly be rendered obsolete
So o'leary will one day have his way
Experienced captains will evaporate through the top, not to be replaced. How could you get the experience to shift left in a single crew operation?
And slowly, by proxy or otherwise, we will slowly be rendered obsolete
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A scary paranoid thought might suggest that statistically everything is much more reliable, and much easier to operate, and therefore negates the need for a skilled person...
Like all the current wide-bodies, the crews will sometimes include very low hour first officers who are second in command and in theory "qualified" to take over and save the day if the captain becomes incapacitated. Thus the computers will not allow the aircraft to stall and you cannot do steep turns because the computers won't let you.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Earth
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Reliability' is an interesting concept.
When the tubes were on fire, didn't help the Novia Scotia plane...
When the AP went out, didn't help Air France...
What about Fire Detection on the Concord...
Where was the automation for the Alaska Airlines flight with a worsening jackscrew....
Value Jet.....American down in S. America...two pilots reading separate VORs..
on and on...
but it's funny...when all the stuff stops working....they still call it pilot error..
Since everyone is relying on the gear so much now....can't they just call it 'gear error'...because, you know...it's not about being able to fly the plane anymore...just work the gear.....
When the tubes were on fire, didn't help the Novia Scotia plane...
When the AP went out, didn't help Air France...
What about Fire Detection on the Concord...
Where was the automation for the Alaska Airlines flight with a worsening jackscrew....
Value Jet.....American down in S. America...two pilots reading separate VORs..
on and on...
but it's funny...when all the stuff stops working....they still call it pilot error..
Since everyone is relying on the gear so much now....can't they just call it 'gear error'...because, you know...it's not about being able to fly the plane anymore...just work the gear.....
Sillypeoples
It would be helpful if you actually, say, read those accident reports.
Or blundered into severe turbulence around the ITCZ at night,
Or handled a supersonic aircraft,
Or actually did a MGTOW take-off on a limiting runway,
Just sayin'
GF
It would be helpful if you actually, say, read those accident reports.
Or blundered into severe turbulence around the ITCZ at night,
Or handled a supersonic aircraft,
Or actually did a MGTOW take-off on a limiting runway,
Just sayin'
GF
Last edited by galaxy flyer; 2nd Dec 2012 at 01:16.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talking to a pilot flying the Fokker F100. Asked did he do much hand flying during line flying over the deserts of Australia, he said practically zero. In fact the company requirement was autopilot engaged at 100 ft after take off and leave it until the last minute before touch down. The reason? "Fokker want it flown that way."
And this is precisely the same myopic thinking that manufacturers are pushing so hard while completely disregarding the fact that manual flying skills needed to be practiced to keep up basic flying competency. Or are we to believe what an experienced Boeing instructor pilot told me about the marvellous technology of the Boeing 787, when he said: "We have designed the 787 on the assumption it will be flown by incompetent pilots."
And this is precisely the same myopic thinking that manufacturers are pushing so hard while completely disregarding the fact that manual flying skills needed to be practiced to keep up basic flying competency. Or are we to believe what an experienced Boeing instructor pilot told me about the marvellous technology of the Boeing 787, when he said: "We have designed the 787 on the assumption it will be flown by incompetent pilots."