Manual handling?
cessnapete, my concern was the inference that handling issues as you describe #15, did not provide any evidence linking skill levels to the current levels of safety.
Perhaps my point is better addressed to regulators who seek to encourage manual flight as and when conditions allow. Which turns out to be the less demanding low workload situations that do not relate to the high workload stressful abnormal conditions which often preceded ‘handling’ incidents.
The industry must change the way they think about flying modern systems, in modern operational situations, but equally think ahead about what further, unseen challenges of automation and technology will create.
Perhaps my point is better addressed to regulators who seek to encourage manual flight as and when conditions allow. Which turns out to be the less demanding low workload situations that do not relate to the high workload stressful abnormal conditions which often preceded ‘handling’ incidents.
The industry must change the way they think about flying modern systems, in modern operational situations, but equally think ahead about what further, unseen challenges of automation and technology will create.
I would like to participate in this discussion (which will not surprise some readers I am sure) but I will be off the grid for the next few weeks. Anyway here's my six pennyworth ....
Firstly, Wiggy is quite right about a number of aspects,especially that this is a bit of personal video, not an official description of an operational policy! Not only that, the individual who's made it has done so to "educate" the general public, and to reassure them that what goes on in the flight deck is not generally a matter of steely - jawed supermen and women wrestling to keep them from imminent death.
Safetypee hits another nail on the head with "a Shared Monitored Approach, this could be a very good basis for enhancing the skills required today, even though the procedure may not be as originally envisaged."
Businesses today are extremely conscious of the need to avoid corporate risk - any CEO who says that "passenger safety is our paramount priority" is a liar. Their paramount priority is to survive, i.e. stay in business, and that means among other things don't give any lawyer the opportunity to say you didn't take every possible precaution for the record, even if that produces stupid results in the real world. Hence Centaurus' Boeing quote, I have also heard similar sentiments in various forms of words.
Bottom line is that this leads to a chain of thought that starts with "automation reduces workload", which most will probably agree if it's taken only as a very broad generalisation. That leads to "so unnecessary manual flying must result in unnecessarily increased workload". In particular it must divert pilot flying's attention from overall management and supervision of the entire flight ("big picture" situation awareness) to concentration on short term control manipulation. Reduced situational awareness is well known accident cause so this must obviously increase risk and is therefore not to be encouraged. And the less experienced and in recent practice you are, the more that is going to occur - it's a vicious circle, and no management is going to break out of it.
But we all know that there are many situations where you do need to be able to do it manually, and the occasional sim. session isn't enough.
As safetypee points out "a Shared Monitored Approach... could be a very good basis for enhancing the skills required today, even though the procedure may not be as originally envisaged."
One of the fundamental objectives of the pilot monitored approach is that it separates the short term instrument flying tasks from the big picture flight management and supervision tasks by delegating it to the other pilot, negating much of the "must always use automatics to be safe" argument.
This is of course exactly what happens when you start instrument flying training. In good conditions, the instructor puts you under the hood, and you can fly manual approaches on instruments as low as you like in perfect safety, because the instructor can see the big picture, and take the hood away or even take control if necessary and the situation starts getting unsatisfactory. With a PiC monitored approach, you can do exactly the same on the line.
You would need some guidelines for management to satisfy their "cover your a**e" requirements, but using pilot monitored approaches routinely in good weather works extremely well as a way of satisfying everyone's needs.
See Manual practice | PicMA and A "best practice" example operations policy. | PicMA where an example of possible cover-your a**e limitations is provided, and before anyone asks this is not simply cut and paste from any one airline......
Off on my hols away from keyboards.... a safe and prosperous New Year to all!
Steve
Firstly, Wiggy is quite right about a number of aspects,especially that this is a bit of personal video, not an official description of an operational policy! Not only that, the individual who's made it has done so to "educate" the general public, and to reassure them that what goes on in the flight deck is not generally a matter of steely - jawed supermen and women wrestling to keep them from imminent death.
Safetypee hits another nail on the head with "a Shared Monitored Approach, this could be a very good basis for enhancing the skills required today, even though the procedure may not be as originally envisaged."
Businesses today are extremely conscious of the need to avoid corporate risk - any CEO who says that "passenger safety is our paramount priority" is a liar. Their paramount priority is to survive, i.e. stay in business, and that means among other things don't give any lawyer the opportunity to say you didn't take every possible precaution for the record, even if that produces stupid results in the real world. Hence Centaurus' Boeing quote, I have also heard similar sentiments in various forms of words.
Bottom line is that this leads to a chain of thought that starts with "automation reduces workload", which most will probably agree if it's taken only as a very broad generalisation. That leads to "so unnecessary manual flying must result in unnecessarily increased workload". In particular it must divert pilot flying's attention from overall management and supervision of the entire flight ("big picture" situation awareness) to concentration on short term control manipulation. Reduced situational awareness is well known accident cause so this must obviously increase risk and is therefore not to be encouraged. And the less experienced and in recent practice you are, the more that is going to occur - it's a vicious circle, and no management is going to break out of it.
But we all know that there are many situations where you do need to be able to do it manually, and the occasional sim. session isn't enough.
As safetypee points out "a Shared Monitored Approach... could be a very good basis for enhancing the skills required today, even though the procedure may not be as originally envisaged."
One of the fundamental objectives of the pilot monitored approach is that it separates the short term instrument flying tasks from the big picture flight management and supervision tasks by delegating it to the other pilot, negating much of the "must always use automatics to be safe" argument.
This is of course exactly what happens when you start instrument flying training. In good conditions, the instructor puts you under the hood, and you can fly manual approaches on instruments as low as you like in perfect safety, because the instructor can see the big picture, and take the hood away or even take control if necessary and the situation starts getting unsatisfactory. With a PiC monitored approach, you can do exactly the same on the line.
You would need some guidelines for management to satisfy their "cover your a**e" requirements, but using pilot monitored approaches routinely in good weather works extremely well as a way of satisfying everyone's needs.
See Manual practice | PicMA and A "best practice" example operations policy. | PicMA where an example of possible cover-your a**e limitations is provided, and before anyone asks this is not simply cut and paste from any one airline......
Off on my hols away from keyboards.... a safe and prosperous New Year to all!
Steve
