Safety, CRM, QA & Emergency Response Planning A wide ranging forum for issues facing Aviation Professionals and Academics

Manual handling?

Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:36
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Manual handling?

Meet the British Airways pilot filming from the flight deck to demystify his job | The Independent

Just seen this on the web.
Beautiful severe CAVOK not a cloud in sight, and not very busy ATC environment. Capt. handling the aircraft (fully coupled approach) At about 5/600 feet Capt inexplicably hands control to the co pilot. He continues fully coupled to 3/400 ft and manually lands. Only handling seemed to be the copilot tweaks the side stick back 1/4 inch to flare, and I presume closed the thrust levers, as the auto-throttle appeared active until touchdown. This presumably is called a co pilot handling sector.
What a seemingly complicated way to operate a modern jet airliner!
No wonder handling skills are deteriorating.

Last edited by cessnapete; 8th Dec 2017 at 10:00.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 09:51
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 1,624
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Welcome to the BA monitored approach... I don’t get it either. Hopefully someone familiar will be along to explain it soon.

Last edited by EGPFlyer; 8th Dec 2017 at 13:03.
EGPFlyer is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 10:58
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Midlands
Age: 77
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As a co-pilot in (shorthaul) BA many years ago I hated it. It was one of the reasons I left, but that is another story...... The big surprise to me is that the old BOAC guys took it on as well.

As for fully coupled approach down to a couple of hundred feet on a nice day - why?
Old and Horrified is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 11:08
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UK.
Posts: 4,390
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Monitored_Approach

Done it 'one man band' and 'monitored approach'. Can handle either.
You just do what the company says; it's their train set and, if you're all doing it the same way then it's easier to spot an error developing.
Basil is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 11:37
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
As for fully coupled approach down to a couple of hundred feet on a nice day - why?
No idea, in the abscence of any weather reason the one often given by those who decline to handfly is “fatigue”

Anyhow leaving it coupled up for an ILS is not mandatory on a nice day, even under BA’s SOPs....
wiggy is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 11:59
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
What a seemingly complicated way to operate a modern jet airliner!
No wonder handling skills are deteriorating.
As a former Boeing 787 simulator instructor relayed to me after his conversation with a Boeing Company test pilot on type who said: "We have designed the 787 on the assumption it will be flown by incompetent pilots - hence all the protections."

In turn, this breeds pilots of highly automated aircraft who become addictive to automation to the extent they become apprehensive of manual handling even under the most benign of weather conditions. Excuses will abound. Often these crews are constrained by company SOP's which encourage full use of automation at all times. It will never change.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 13:18
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: London
Age: 79
Posts: 543
Received 35 Likes on 15 Posts
Originally Posted by Old and Horrified
As a co-pilot in (shorthaul) BA many years ago I hated it. It was one of the reasons I left, but that is another story...... The big surprise to me is that the old BOAC guys took it on as well.

As for fully coupled approach down to a couple of hundred feet on a nice day - why?
Can't remember , as an old BOAC guy myself, seeing that monitored approach EVEN after BOAC became BA.

I cannot understand why any airline would insist on automatics being used at all times.

I used to enjoy hand flying my 75/76 when conditions allowed, believing that I MIGHT, just MIGHT one day , have to take one into , eg, Keflavik, in poor weather, at 3 o'clock in the morning, on one engine, little or no automatics, on a non precision approach.

That would not be the time to refresh manual handling skills !
RetiredBA/BY is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 13:45
  #8 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It will never change? Don't you think for a moment the long range objective isn't to remove the pilots from the airplane.
aterpster is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 14:12
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It's already happened. The drone operators have taken their place, in the cockpit. That's only a small step removed from an office on the ground, schematically speaking relative to their interface with the autopilot controls.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 14:18
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: On the dark side of the moon
Posts: 975
Received 5 Likes on 3 Posts
When the structural integrity of said office ends the same as the aircraft, I will buy a ticket on it, and not until ...
J.O. is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 15:50
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
c...pete, #1, you refer to a particular handling procedure and then conclude, without further evidence, that this contributes to deteriorating handling skills.

It is difficult to identify any strong evidence that deteriorating manual skills have contributed to the current level of safety. There may be examples where the apparent inability to recover from unusual situations have been cited as difficulties with manual control, but this is with hindsight and often overlooks the difficulties in attaining the required situation awareness to effect recovery, and perhaps representing the same situational difficulties which led to the event in the first instance.

Studies have reported some deterioration in manual flying skill, but perhaps more importantly the cognitive skills required to manage the flight and manual control (S Casner, NASA).
Those who wish to criticise the monitored approach procedure, perhaps overlook an advantage of the change of control in maintaining the required skills. The pilot monitoring, knowing that s/he will become pilot flying may be encourage to be even more actively engaged in the flying process, awareness as a monitor, and then to fly, ( ...the retention of cognitive skills needed for manual flying may depend on the degree to which pilots remain actively engaged in supervising the automation. Casner.)

Manual handling skills in modern aircraft should not be compared with those required in previous aircraft because the need is not the same. Nowadays pilots require a skill set applicable to modern systems, some of this will require manual flight, but more so the cognitive skills to manage advanced systems and the overall task of operating an aircraft in a complex environment.

‘... tweaks the side stick back 1/4 inch to flare,’; the skill here is knowing when to do this and how the timing or magnitude should change according the situation, which requires assessment and knowledge.

Last edited by safetypee; 8th Dec 2017 at 17:37. Reason: Thanks for thread move, but...
safetypee is offline  
Old 8th Dec 2017, 22:19
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by safetypee
Manual handling skills in modern aircraft should not be compared with those required in previous aircraft because the need is not the same. Nowadays pilots require a skill set applicable to modern systems, some of this will require manual flight, but more so the cognitive skills to manage advanced systems and the overall task of operating an aircraft in a complex environment.
I'd like to challenge the bolded statement. On what basis do you say that?

I think you meant for the part that follows to answer my question, but it doesn't. All the systems/automation management tasks are indeed there, and require their own (mental) skills to master, bit that's in addition to the manual handling skills, not instead.

Who holds the final responsibility for the flight path of the plane? It's purportedly the flight crew. When the plane has an unusual attitude, stalls, enters windshear/severe turbulence, loses air data or inertial sources, suffers certain electrical failures, etc., does the autopilot automatically turn itself on to take control and fix the problem? No, the opposite happens. It's at our feet that the problem ultimately lands. From this premise it follows that the manual handing skills are required 100% as much as in previous aircraft. What is different that would lessen that?


The notion that it is the responsibility of the airplane (and not the flight crew) to fix the handling problem can only exist under the premise that the flight crew are no longer pilots, but drone operators. I'm not saying that this arrangement is invalid, but it needs to be recognized, since it embodies a fundamental inversion of the flow of responsibility between man and machine.

The paradigms of automation interaction:

The past: The flight crew (pilot) is fully proficient in manual handling, as all their habits and skills were developed when manual handling was pretty much all the handling. The rudimentary autopilot is there just to offload effort during a long and monotonous cruise, and if there's any problem the pilot takes manual control with the same readiness (and ease) as an instructor takes over from a first-lesson student. Responsibility flows from machine to man.

The future: the ground crew (drone operator) enters high-level automation commands and the airplane literally flies itself. If any problems occur, it is designed with the capability (and redundancy) to handle almost anything. Responsibility flows from man to machine.

The big problem with the present is that we are partially on the way to this future reality, without all the necessary pieces in place to make it work. The flight crews barely fly and are uncomfortable with flying in other than the most benign of circumstances (if at all), as their skills and habits are formed on the basis of automation interaction that's a lot closer to "the future" than "the past"; so responsibility flows to the machine. But the machine is not designed to handle problems like the list I mentioned earlier. (Airbuses can maintain control through some of them only.). ITS capability very easily reverts to "the past," so responsibility flows to man. So, ultimately man and machine both throw the responsibility of handling onto the other if too many difficulties pile up, with no one there capable of catching it. With fatal consequences in recent high-profile accidents.

Last edited by Vessbot; 8th Dec 2017 at 23:24.
Vessbot is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 09:09
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I grew up in the steam driven days and flew a huge selection of GA aircraft in diverse environs before graduating to needles & dials jets and finally the TV generation. The basic manual skills were honed in the early years as solid foundations and maintained via daily use. Indeed we flew to many places where they were the only options. I've always been of the view that passengers climb aboard with total faith that we shall deliver them safely to their destination, or somewhere on suitable terra firma. If things go well the former will occur; if not the latter might. They trust that when the automatics, that are there to reduce workload and not takeover command, misbehave we shall takeover control and resolve the issue with a safe landing. My Ops management felt similarly and expected the same professional outcome, and thus trained us accordingly and expected us to maintain those trained skills. We were an insurance policy for when things go amiss. The pax and company expected, absolutely, the insurance policy to pay out when the claim was made. They did not expect any 'trying to wriggle out of it' at the crunch.
NASA"s boys brought the hugely automated shuttle and capsule back to earth when various electrons went on holiday. How?
The philosophy today seems to be to design more automatic back up systems so that the 'so-called pilot' just watches as another automatic system takes over from the errant automatic system. That can work fine if the initial failure is as per what the designers have envisaged in their design studio. Unfortunately the real world, including mother nature, has a habit of throwing up unforeseen hiccups. The untrained unskilled pilot is then left with a bag of bolts and bits a string connected to nothing and a head full of questions with no answers. There is even a strong possibility that in the darkness of knowledge any pilot intervention could make it worse and the downward spiral goes into unrecoverable mode.
There are failures, never dreamed of under the "that should never happen category", where it is recoverable but was screwed up. e.g. we've seen the static ports covered up, and pitot failures where basic skills were found wanting. Fuselage icing of sensors that caused computers to malfunction totally. And finally catastrophic loss of thrust scenarios. I wonder what would happen in a real, at night, total loss of AC event. And then we'll find it was never trained for, just demonstrated to tick a box.
I do find it shameful that the annual LPC demands manual skills to be demonstrated when they are actively discouraged on a daily basis. One wonders if the tolerances employed at checks are as stiff as they used to be, or should be. Anyone who thinks 15 minutes in a sim can create the competent manual skills that every pilot should posses needs a reality check. Unfortunately there are HOTs that do, or are not allowed to provide the depth of training they would like and are not allowed to encourage on-line practice of the dark arts.
I suspect the techies, with all their back-up systems, will win the day. The risk managers will argue that the next Sully will be another 20 years away. The truth is there are probably incidents every day, some become accidents, that do not receive any awareness or publicity. Some will be prevented, or saved, by good skills because it was lucky that captain XYZ was on board instead of ABC. Luck should not play such a large part in accident prevention.

The end is nigh. The time to be really worried is when cost savings means switching off the light at the end of the tunnel.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 09:55
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Safetypee.
I hear what you say. But on my day on the B744 my co pilot could if he chose, on a day like that, manually fly the aircraft from any time in the descent through to parking the aircraft.
I reckon that is a better way at retaining ones handling skills, than tweaking the side stick at 100 ft after the Capt had flown the aircraft to 1000ft or below.
But I'm a ROF so what do I know?
cessnapete is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 09:59
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
I cannot understand why any airline would insist on automatics being used at all times.
Just to be clear, because a film of a BA operation kicked this thread off, BA do not insist on automatics being used at all times...

People do seem to be getting things in a twist here and elsewhere about BA procedures, (again possibly because of that darned video)...

At BA if it's your sector you are allowed to "handfly" the thing up to when the likes of RVSM kicks in..prior to TOD you brief your colleague on the arrival, hand over control, and his/her job is to get the thing in the slot for your landing...during the approach they are usually perfectly at liberty to handfly the thing, outside of RVSM and weather/RNAV etc permitting...you take it for the landing....it may seem strange ( agreed) but after a bit of experience it works fine, it means if you are managing an emergency as the PIC there is no change to the flow you normally use, and you get just as much opportunity to handfly as does the guy working to what many of you see as the more time honoured way of doing things..

But on my day on the B744 my co pilot could if he chose, on a day like that, manually fly the aircraft from any time in the descent through to parking the aircraft.
So over two sectors ( typical long haul trip) on the "other day" presumably they spent the sector operating the services, record keeping and doing the R/T....so on a typical non-augmented Long-Haul trip they get one descent,one approach, one landing and one go at parking.

Over two sectors at BA ( RVSM/RNAV permitting) a co-pilot can, if he/she chooses, manually fly a descent, an approach, a landing through to parking the aircraft...so over time (e.g. a typical Long Haul non-augmented out and back) the BA procedures have not reduced the opportunities for co-pilot handling.

.....IMHO if people on the line are not opting to "handfly" at BA then that is a personal issue, not because the company ban it...

Last edited by wiggy; 9th Dec 2017 at 10:10.
wiggy is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 13:34
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: FL450
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
At BA is auto thrust out or is it a requirement it must be kept in on the Airbus, during hand flying ?
speed_alive_rotate is offline  
Old 9th Dec 2017, 23:02
  #17 (permalink)  
Mistrust in Management
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 973
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is my understanding that BA SOP's now state that auto-thrust must be used (if available) in all stages of flight, including manual handling.

This was not the case when I last flew the 320 in BA many years ago.


Regards
Exeng
exeng is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 06:59
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,019
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Wiggy
Manual handling is defined as controlling both the flight path and speed of the aircraft. Other than the B744 (B767?)
So BA SOP now bans any manual handling during route operations.
cessnapete is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 07:56
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,545
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by cessnapete
Wiggy
Manual handling is defined as controlling both the flight path and speed of the aircraft. Other than the B744 (B767?)
So BA SOP now bans any manual handling during route operations.
Ok, firstly reference? Secondly if that is indeed a universally held truth how then (serious question) do you log/categorise a ILS flown without the use of automatic pitch and roll modes ?coupled?

Again, don’t shoot the messenger, don’t agree with the policy, etc etc...but I’d at least like to make sure the record keeping / log book is legit...
wiggy is offline  
Old 10th Dec 2017, 09:27
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 2,451
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes on 5 Posts
Vessbot, I agree with most of your points #13.
I failed to expand on ‘need’ or the associated ‘skills’. This weakness is often encountered when discussing manual flying - not the physical actions, but the amalgamation (a feedback loop process) of mental and physical activity.
Everyone knows what they mean, and then assumes that everyone else has the same understanding - which would be incorrect.

You provide a good description of joint physical and mental skill components of ‘manual flying’, they should not (cannot) be separated. Not additional skills, but adjustment in the balance of mental / physical components.
The initial use of automation overlooked the requirement to reinforce the mental skills, this was further complicated by an expanding range of operations enabled by automation.

Modern ideas on skill sets appear to be strengthening the mental components, but not everyone agrees with the need, or do not have the mechanism for training these aspects (how do you teach situation awareness). The ‘need’ of old style manual flying is reducing; technology has sufficient capability that every aircraft can ‘feel’ the same (cf same type ratings). Technology also reduces other tasks, e.g.the need for compensating trimming with configuration change or for engine failure.
Conversely the mental skills required for managing the automation and associated technical systems should be enhanced and practiced, or in some instances taught as basic - critical thinking, thinking ahead.

‘Monitoring’ is the modern mantra, but monitor what. The flight path - what the aircraft is doing, yet many texts discuss monitoring automation, and thus pilots spend more time checking FMAs vice considering what the aircraft is actually doing compared to that required, or as they requested the automation to do.

Our different views are primarily with language, which can often result misunderstandings.
Not ‘additional’ skills, but the development of existing mental skills according to situation.
Pilots are an arbiter between what is required and what was intended, involving situation awareness and decision making; ‘responsibility’ could invoke blame and error.
‘Responsibility’ should never be passed to a machine.

I disagree with the ‘drone’ analogy, but this would be another subject.

As for the procedure observed in #1, often known as 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.
‘Shared’, can be taught as the partnership between crew and machine and the transference of activities; the concept of ‘Monitoring’ aligns with the need to refocus skills to identify and choose what is important in a particular situation.
It is also a procedure which can be used with or without autopilot / autothrust; but that requires a change of mind set.
safetypee is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.