|
hmmmmmmm, just given the '80 knots call' thread over on tech log another coat of looking at. We can see the clash of cultures in action there.
I just want to add something to those who've been brought up in an autopilot, autothrottle and flightdirector always on company. Don't care if you see this as pragmatic, plain old cover yer ass, duty of care to your pax or the ravings of a luddite. If your MEL allows you to dispatch with any of the three mother's little helpers U/S how can you defend yourself if you never practice? If the loss of one or more of them in flight doesn't lead to a QRH entry: 'land at nearest available/suitable field,' surely the onus lays on you to practice this. The sim just doesn't cut it because the box ticking/checking aspect takes primacy. What I'm suggesting is that you try to drain the subject of emotion, ignore blandishments about being a better, more complete pilot. Treat it as a piece of contractual law and as inexorable logic progression. If SOP's, Ops Manual and QRH or MEL allow or assume you will continue flying when an autopilot, flight director or autothrottles give up the ghost surely it is incumbent on you to be able to competently and safely complete the flight????? Therefore it must be equally incumbent on you to remain practiced and current whatever the culture at your place of work. Rob |
Excellent Towers! This is exactly what I and others were (trying?) to point out at the beginning of this thread I think. Carriers here routinely fly auto-pilot only..actually not even below 1,000' usually all the way through auto-land. And they have SOPs which allow dispatch with 1 AP U/S (on a regular basis). With maintenance issues and fast long haul turnarounds then thrown in, it's a definate safety concern-which I believe is the purpose and point of this forum. ;)
|
Well if you never hand fly then this happens
AAIB - march 2003 reports http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ty_507767.hcsp |
Being a simple guy, should I be writing the company ops manual I would suggest.
AP must be used for all departures and arrivals ; 1. LNAV proceedures (eg, schipol SID/STAR's) 2. Night 3. IMC 4. Cat II or III ILS 5. Any other time that EITHER member of the crew considers nessecary. If you want to practise your hand flying skill, thats a good thing, but safety should always come first. cheers Bateman |
AP must be used for all departures and arrivals What about always using the autothrottle until the day it fails and it's Cat 11?? No autothrottle ain't a stopper for most aircraft. Do you divert? Is that in your book? How will you get into Schipol, CDG, Muc or the rest of the Lnav airports if your autopilot goes twang? Divert? Sitting down it all sounds sensible and safe but the reality is your MEL, QRH and company manuals will expect you to dispatch/continue. And loads of you are subscribing to a culture where simple failures are effectively emergencies due to lack of practice. You go off duty shaking your head and get deeper into the 'it's not safe mindset' because it was bloody hard work. Here it is in a nutshell. If a company document, any document allows/expects you to launch or continue flight without an autopilot, flight director or autothrottle it isn't an emergency, it's something you should regularly practice - not frighten the other guy coz you're in the sim next week. |
"It is all about safety"
Sorry but I can't see how always flying around with an AP on is creating a safe enviroment. AP's when over used can make pilots very complacent, at the end of the day there is a time and place for APs and hand flying it's just finding the correct mix of the two :ok: splat |
Here is the big thing - what is safety?
If you fly all approaches on AP and mandate its use, when something different happens (even like a visual approach) then you are eroding safety margins MORE because you are out of practice. What happens when you fly into Tel Aviv and they give you a visual onto 30 because the wind is out of limits? I have flown that with a very nervous captain on a gin clear day. He was worried we would screw up - its only a visual approach for goodness sake. The guys who I fly with who regulary practice hand flying with and without the flight director are much better at everything, because their capacity is higher and they understand what is happening more. The day before yesterday I turned the flight director off because my flying was better without it. Nailing the flight director got me levelled off 100 feet below my chosen altitude - OK, I should have scanned more, but that is the problem with a flight director - it erodes your scan, hence the fact that I turned it off, scanned more and flew more accurately. I never want to fly with someone who thinks his hand flying is so dangerous that he shouldn't do it with passengers on board. If that is true he shouldn't be flying. Full stop. |
All very interesting stuff but we seem to have drifted away from the original posters question!
The original question was about the use of autopilots when there is a system failure or some other abnormal situation that does not preclude the use of autopilots. I believe that during abnormal situations if autopilots are available then they should be used where possible so that the crew can sit back and properly assess their situation and then make the correct decisions. Thereafter it may well be prudent to handfly but this would depend on the nature of the abnormality. |
As a captain, Ive watched 250 hour F/O's use 100% of their concentration just to hand fly a departure in IMC. I think that the AP should be on, and they should free up some of their attention to monitor other aspects of the flight.
When its day VMC I would encourage f/o's to do as much hand flying as they want and I agree with your points on the benefits of practice. I dont dispute that practice expands a persons capability. But I would suggest that night/IMC is not the best time for it. An excellent case in point is the QF overrun at Bangkok. Page 5 of the ATSB report states that - "The first officer reported that he decided to fly the approach 'manually' in order to get some 'hands-on' flying". Page 44 states one of the ACTIVE FAILURES as - "The first officer did not fly the aircraft accurately during the final approach". The weather was terrible, it was night, and the guy hadnt slept in 18+ hours. These are not the best conditions to be practicing your manual approaches, and I would argue that putting in the AP and monitoring would have been a better option. I will concede that the long haul guys need hand flying practice because they get so little of it. But I think that you can see the point I am making here. Hand flying is unsuitable under certain circumstances. pprune towers - I see your point that Mandatory autopilot use is incompatable with some emergency situations. In that case, change my wording to "AP SHOULD be used WHEN AVAILABLE...". Bateman |
The weather was terrible, it was night, and the guy hadnt slept in 18+ hours. These are not the best conditions to be practicing your manual approaches, and I would argue that putting in the AP and monitoring would have been a better option. Page 44 states one of the ACTIVE FAILURES as - "The first officer did not fly the aircraft accurately during the final approach". pprune towers - I see your point that Mandatory autopilot use is incompatable with some emergency situations. In that case, change my wording to "AP SHOULD be used WHEN AVAILABLE...". How about "use the autopilot when prudent", which should be covered under the "operate the aeroplane safely" rule which all airlines have written somewhere, but in different words. Currency is realised to be very important in all aviaiton, so much so that we mandate it for pilots no matter what their experience. Unless we are current at hand flying, we are eroding safety margins for when we need our skills. You can't always practise in good weather, and sometimes you need to practise in cloud for instance, because it is simply different to flying on a gin clear day. The example above would not be one of those times though. |
some seem to say hand flying should only be used in day vmc.
For pities sake what are we producing from flight schools these days.:( |
Daysleeper I think what the schools are turning out are capable, if inexperienced, IR rated pilots, with a minimum of hours and a new licence who are familiar with single crew Seneca/Cessna310 types of operation. The problems can start when they get their first airline job and are suddenly thrust into a multi-crew automated flight deck environment which, by design, encourages automated flying, their recently acquired skills then get rusty and the experience bank they have to fall back on is not so deep and in a totally different type of flying. Those of us who have had the benefit of twenty odd years experience of relatively unsophisticated aircraft should have no problem reverting to basics when required so an area that perhaps needs to be looked at is appropriate continuation training for new pilots coming from the flying schools and going straight to the advanced and automated flight deck?
More generally, in order that we don't find ourselves at cross purposes, I think it is important to identify just which aircraft we are talking about, as , with most modern aircraft a high degree of knowledge and expertise of the automatic systems is required if they are to be used to their full advantage. On the other side of the coin we have such aircraft as the BAC1-11 and the B737-200 where I seem to remember that all approaches were hand flown, in fact all flying below 10,000', since the automation available was very limited and amounted to Hdg Hold, Alt Hold and VS. I don't remember the VOR/LOC function ever being satisfactory! As I mentioned above, many of the newer aircraft are automated by design, not just for normal operations but also to cope with the majority of abnormal situations too, now that there is no Flight Engineer, deliberately reducing to an absolute minimum the occasion when you might find yourself with no alternative but to hand fly. Two engines out on a four engine aircraft is one, (B747), also unscheduled stab trim input with both channels inoperative is another and the most probable, I think, might be structural damage that takes out hydraulic systems. They have all happened but can hardly be described as common occurrences and the relevant hand-flying that needs to be practised the most is with the above mentioned scenarios present. Hand flying a serviceable aircraft is of course essential to maintain IR skills, skills that will be most in demand if things are going wrong and the auto-pilot won't work and should, in my opinion, be practised whenever it can be done without eroding any safety margins and I don't believe there can be any SOP that covers that as every flight is different. With my last employer we were told to take the autopilot at 400'agl when departing LHR but this was on very heavy B747s and designed to ensure that our tracking was sufficiently accurate to avoid ringing any bells! A trial period showed that this procedure worked the best. That was the only auto pilot SOP I have encountered, other than for CatII/III operations. |
perhaps my earlier comment should have been, what is our system of flight training producing, after all the flight schools only train to the standard the industry and regulators require.
There is IMHO a worrying skills gap developing between the older generation who, as you say, flew aircraft where automation was a luxury, and the younger generation with 250 hours putting the AP in at 1500 feet on the way up and taking it out at 500' 3 hours later on the way down. For example 2 x 3 hour sectors a day , 4 days a week, logged 96 hours in a month, actually flew the aeroplane for 40 minutes. So in a whole year a pilot might only hand fly for 12 hours. Extreme example maybe but if your adding that onto your stock of knowlege gained after a 250 hour course then it is surprising there are not more handling incidents. |
A/P Just Practice in quiet airports....
The whole autopilot thing is real easy.
If you feel inadequate if you don't hand fly enough, just disengage in low workload/VFR conditions at low traffic airports. It's actually fun and you get the "feel" back. Then if you have a situation where you cannot use it, it's a lot easier. As for routine... I don't think any turbojet should be handflown anyway. This is 2003 and the autopilot will ALWAYS give the passengers a smoother ride. |
The problem is some of us only fly around highly congested Europe with its equally congested airports. Would you suggest hand flying from Chicago to JFK ? It may be o.k if itīs your backyard, but I for one have to work hard on any stateside trip with the adherence to U.S standard r/t along with U.S controlling (not worse just different). Also I gather that virtually no U.S airline runs any type of SESMA or event monitoring system in the flight deck, so we have to be overlly careful when accepting U.S style visual approaches. Basically, itīs safer for my career to keep the autopilot in.....
|
I have only just found this thread and I have to say that I am quite amazed at the number of posters who seem to think that flying their aircraft without an autopilot is such a big deal.
As I said on another forum recently, the presence of an autopilot on the aircraft that I presently fly is not required by the MEL. Not long ago I did a 4-sector duty hand-flying and it was no big deal at all. I don't want to do it every night but it was no big deal. I freely admit to belonging to the old school and I also spend a lot of time in the simulator so that I always tend to hand-fly for the first and last 20,000 feet when I'm flying the real thing (unless the weather is crap). It is very easy to keep current at button-pushing but much harder to keep your hand-flying up to scratch. To me that is the essential skill for a professional pilot. We all have to be prepared for the unthinkable such as a total electrical failure. Believe me, it does happen from time to time. From my experience it is not simple engine failures or fires at V1 that kill people it is when the bizarre happenings that are not in the QRH occur and which therefore usually involve a high degree of basic aircraft handling skills that things start to go badly wrong. That is why we are called pilots and not dog-handlers and, as I have always assumed, is precisely what we are paid for. In any event I can now understand from some of the responses on this thread why the introduction of the raw data ILS to minimums as required for the JAR LPC (FCL 1.240 (b)(1) Item 3.9.3.1) caused such a fluttering in the dovecot. As a TRI/TRE who conducts dozens of such tests every year it has been my experience that the beginners (with 250-400 hours) find this exercise quite easy and so do the old boys (once they have got over the initial shock). However there were quite a few who fell between the two stools who were obviously pushing too many buttons and whose basic flying skills had been neglected. My debriefs have obviously worked for I don't see too much of this any more. I also spend a lot of my time teaching LOFT. I simply cannot buy the idea that by hand-flying we are over-loading the PNF. I can personally quite happily hand-fly the aircraft and deal with ATC etc while PNF deals with getting the weather and other things. If you really don't think this can be done what the hell are you going to do when you have a total electrical failure and your F/O is immersed in a very complicated QRH drill and can't monitor you anyway for the standby horizon is on the captain's panel? Now then, I love automatics. I was disappointed in the DC-10 for it was only duplex-autoland (I came from a triplex-autoland background)! I always but always teach pilots to use the autoplilot when something goes wrong IF IT IS AT ALL POSSIBLE. That always helps us to step back a little bit from the problem and become better managers but, for God's sake, don't forget that you were hired as a PILOT and not as a dog-handler! |
When I learnt to fly, AIRMANSHIP was something that was stressed, taught and encouraged. Sadly, we hardly ever hear that word today! There are times when good airmanship dictates that the AP should be used. However, if a pilot does not maintain a good level of competence in hand flying skills then he is displaying poor airmanship. Therefore, if it is prudent and safe to hand fly a departure or arrival then it should be hand flown in order to maintain these skills.
I had one trip in a "Classic" Boeing where, in accordance with the MEL, we dispatched with the 'Alt Sel' autopilot function inoperative but with the 'Alt Hold' function working. This meant that there was a high probability of an altitude bust with the AP engaged if the normal habit pattern and swith selections were followed. Therefore, it was much safer to hand fly the aircraft and scan the altimeter when levelling off. Oh, and that was into and then out of ORD! Traditional stick and rudder skills are dying in both commercial and military aircraft due to the advent of electronic flight control systems with envelope protection. Soon, these skills will only reside in sport aviation. Let us practise and preserve these skills as much as we can - one day your life may depend on them. |
I hear exactly where people like JW411 and LOMCEVAK are coming from and to a certain extent - but only a certain extent - I agree with them.
As I have pointed out many, many times, it is incumbent upon pilots to keep ALL our skills up to date. However, there are times and places to do so. CRM also dictates that you ask the PNF if he minds. JW411, you say you can't see him getting overloaded. Is he monitoring you at all times? Probably not. Do you ask him before taking the A/P out? You say you teach LOFT. How do you incorporate CRM into that? I have no patience at all with pilots who refuse ever to do any hand flying except as noted earlier, when they have a sim ride coming up. Similarly I have little patience with the bluff old captain who blusters his way through a flight deprecating the youngsters nowadays and cowing them into submission (I'm NOT including you in this, JW411, lest there be any doubt!). Nor do I have any patience with people who say "I've been flying this way for fifty years and never had an accident so I don't need CRM - we never did in the old days blah blah blah..." CRM is here to stay. It has contributed to a massive reduction in the accident rate. Practice it. Likewise, the automatics are very good nowadays. They make the ride far smoother, far more economical. Use them as a matter of course. But keep your handflying skills in as well. |
Lots of BS here (mostly from Capt Stable...sorry old boy but you have forgotten the use of the pole, when it's needed)...!
Hand fly as much as possible, get the feel of the machine, and in time when you need it the most, it will pay dividends, absolutely. Having said this, the automatics on some (read TriStar) types were/are very good, so use 'em if you like,...but gimmie a break, to ask the guy..."do you mind?", is absolute nonsence. IF the F/O cannot keep the plot, then he does NOT belong in the pointy end....ever. What if the Captain keels over...? Then, what does the co-pilot do, talk to himself? Good grief...!:ooh: |
411A
You would appear to have absolutely no conception whatsoever about the modern, (and that excludes the L1011), two crew automated cockpit.
In order to obtain certification for most of the modern, automated 'glass' cockpit aircraft flying to-day the manufacturers had to introduce sufficient automation to enable the Flight Engineer and his panel to be removed. In order that the aircraft can be flown properly, in all conditions, both normal and abnormal it essential that the crews maintain a very high degree of competence in operating the automatic systems so that when things go wrong or the workload gets high they can smoothly and efficiently conduct a safe operation. This is unlikely to happen if a pilot decides to dispense with automation and hand fly as they will then require continuous monitoring whilst calling out instructions and requesting various checklists from the other pilot who will be covering the R/T, executing the required changes to the FMC and and MCP and doing abnormal check lists at the same time. Practise hand flying by all means to cover the very rare occasion when you have no alternatives but please try and remember that with the passing of the flight engineer and the introduction of high levels of automation flight deck philosophy has also changed. |
411A, I concur totally with my colleague Blue Eagle.
Like it or not, CRM is with us. If you can't follow its precepts and principles, you have no place on a modern flight deck. And like it or not, you will be polite to all other users - including the moderators - on this forum. If you are incapable of that, I will ban you from this forum permanently. Do I make myself clear? |
Captain Stable, Blue Eagle--
Personally do fully appreciate that the more modern types (ie; no Flight Engineer) have a high degree of automation, however I can not help to wonder just what would be the end result if, for example, a junior First Officer was to be operating a flight that had the autopilot(s) unserviceable (either fail enroute or dispatched under MEL), and the Captain was to become totally incapacitated. Under these circumstances (yes I know an unlikely event), would not said First Officer be at a terrible disadvantage if he/she had not developed (and kept current) reasonable hand-flying skills? A comment last year on these forums from a younger First Officer having to hand fly a 767 back from the Med at night with autopilots unserviceable..."a nightmare really..." sure did not inspire a lot of confidence from this end. Yes, CRM is very useful, especially on the two crew types, but in the situation I have outlined, do you not think that a high degree of hand flying skill is absolutely required? |
Yes 411A I agree, under the circumstances you describe the F/O's hand flying skills will be required to be up to standard, I think that is what many of us have been saying here, up to standard - Yes but not at the expense of a comprehensive knowledge of the automation available and not to be practised if it will erode any safety margins.
Flying back to the UK in B767 from the Med without autopilot should not present any problems at all. Remember getting airborne from Manila once, after about one hour out we lost our autopilots and continued to Bahrain, (10 hours), without them, no problem, just very tiring and not as smooth as autopilots would have been. |
Jurassic Park
Thank goodness the world has moved on from the days when all pilots had to be capable of delivering "The right stuff" 24/7 (or at least rather die than admit otherwise). Sad to see some pterodactyls still roam the skies
The latest iteration of human factors (CRM) is as close as I have seen to defining that elusive level of common sense that some of us call airmanship. Pilots need to : a) Anticipate and manage threats to the operation. b) Manage crew errors. In the past all training was geared to minimising errors - with little attention being paid to the fact that if humans are involved, errors WILL occur. Clearly technical proficiency (stick and rudder skills) remain very important. However, "optimal" use of resources - such as a sophisticated autopilot allows maximum brain capacity to be dedicated to threat management. Simply put, read the crash comics and consider the likely threat levels. (e.g. Non - precision approach, night, bad weather, complex arrival / departure, busy CTA, tired crew etc). In high threat environments such as the above - use all available resources to free up your brain so that you can actively manage the situation. In low threat environments - practice your hand flying. (The simulator is the ultimate in "low threat" environments). Be safe PJ88 |
411A, nobody has ever said that you should allow handflying skills to degrade. In fact, I have been at pains to point out that we should keep ALL our skills up to date and proficient.
You are perfectly at liberty to disagree with people here. But I will not permit you to refer to the offerings of people with whom you disagree as either nonsense (please not the spelling) or as BS. And if you are unable to get some input as to how the FO likes you doing things that are not immediately necessary and do, however, you dress it up, erode to a certain degree the margins of safety, you have no right to call yourself a professional pilot. CRM is all about keeping all the members of the team in the loop. It is about ensuring you use all resources possible to bring the flight to a safe and expeditious conclusion. It is not about you "doing it this way because that's the way I've always done it and I've never had an accident yet". Like it or not, if you give your FO the feeling that he has no say whatsoever is how the flight is conducted, you WILL cut yourself off from an essential source of information and assistance if it all goes pear-shaped. This is NOT good CRM. Time to learn that lesson. If you can't learn it, then time to retire. I am still waiting for your confirmation that you understand the rules of how this forum operate. |
My, what a can of worms has been opened!
I personally believe in the old `maximise the use of the automatics' as featured in many checklists (normally the nasty ones with the bold type and coloured edges). HOWEVER, when I left training college with the ink drying on my shiny new IR, I fondly imagined I had seen the last of NDB approaches and the like outside renewal time. Wrong. Throughout the next 25 odd years flying medium to large airliners, I frequently found myself doing non-precision approaches of all kinds. An ILS to a minimums night visual circling approach in a 747 is something that will test your hand flying currency quite effectively. For this reason I think it essential to practice hand flying whenever possible (both Captain and F/O...possibly even more important for the F/O). I would however be unlikely to do much in places like LHR or LAX, just because of the workload and traffic density. However a visual/manual approach into a place like Bali or Cairns is just a sheer delight, which of course is something not to be forgotten....enjoyment! On the subject of visuals, often the autopilot/FD will actually be a major hinderance and workload generator. This because a well flown visual (I may not have flown many well myself, but Ive seen a lot!) requires continual smooth changes in ROD, Pitch and Bank Angle. The A/P and FD will certainly not give the roll commands desired (wings level or rate 1 is all you'll get), and the resulting continual reprogramming and adjustments make for a uncomfortable ride and high workload. This is compounded if the PF elects to do a visual with the FD still engaged, as the choice is either ignore it, which is not good practice, or load up the PNF with continual small adjustments,which all have to be called for, verified, etc. Also,of course the same problems apply as for the A/P in terms of available outputs. I was taught, and then passed on to my students, that if the autopilot is taken out to do a visual, then ditch the F/D as well, for it is far more trouble than it's worth and is often working against you. If your manuals and A/C systems allow it, give it a try. I think you'll find it frees up the PNF a lot which is good, because if anything the monitoring requirements on this sort of approach are even higher than normal. So that's my $0.02, nice to see that not all the dinosaurs are dead :ok: Most importantly remember it is possible and highly desirable to enjoy this profession, it makes up for the hopefully rare trip with the grumpy old dinosaurs! Right Airfield, Right Way Up, and if it can be used again with minimal work, who can complain!!:p PS Agree 100% with the earlier comments re. Flight Engineers, Had my @rse saved many times by them, and miss them terribly. God Bless these Fine Gentlemen |
Automation and Hand Flying
I have been watching this forum for some time with avid interest. It appears to me that 411A appears to be from the old school type of cockpit, where Captain God ruled all and did not have to ask permission from that pimply first officer as he had over double his experience in aviaiton.
Fortunatley, this type of mentatlity is becoming extinct however on occasion we still come in contact with the Captain God syndrome in our travels. I agree whole heartedly with Blue Eagle, Hand flying experience should be maintained, but not at busy airports like JFK or LHR. This type of tally-ho attitude will only create more problems. There are three autopilots in these type of machines. NOT because they look prettier in threes, but for the safety issue. They were designed to know the machine better than humans ever possibly could. Get your hand flying experience, but get it in the sim or in perfect weather. Its not rocket science, but a choice of putting the safety of the pax who have entrusted their lives to you before the attitude of 'I'll fly it because I like a challenge'. If you like a challenge, do it in your own time, in the sim, when you're not going to kill anyone. :) Cheers |
Capt'n Stable,
Fully understand your input, but then again remember a private message you sent sometime back indicating that my input was...a prime example of CRM, not. Been around a very long time and can positively say that CRM will not land the aeroplane when it does indeed go pear shaped, and the junior First Officer, faced with a very challanging situation, is up to his behind in alligators (failed systems, incapacitated Captain...etc)...it is ONLY positive, concise training from senior guys, supported my management who understand that said training is very important. Automatics are fine in the normal flow of operations, but practiced hand flying is essential for safety. Agree...or not? |
I have been reading this thread from the day it started and apart from some stupid comments it has been very interesting, informative and very educational for those of us who dont drive jets.
I would like to know what all your comments are on the following situation. I will firstly add that the crews that fly these aircraft are very well thought off in the industry with an extremly good safety record (almost enviable). Two pilot crew with no AP installed, flight directors only, the aircraft are just off new with some very modern avionics and pretty quick. splat :D |
Captain Stable,Blue Eagle,
Indeed it is you that have lost the plot!Instead of making threats to ban a contributor,why dont you argue the point.Put that in your CRM pipe and smoke it. 411 is totally correct.I didnt hear him advocating manual flying without FD's when you're running an abnormal checklist.Although you may well have to!And if you're the skipper,you'll probably be wanting to manage the abnormal situation,which leaves the First Officer flying the thing.So he'd better know how to fly.Which is why this side of the pond,we dont have any 250 hr guys in the right seat of a jet airliner(or turboprop for that matter)!!!! CRM is just fine,but it has its place.Its a Captains aircraft,and dont forget that. Seems like an Atlantic divide here. DO YOU MIND if I log off now?Over and out. BTW,Capt Stable,you chose to correct 411 for a minor spelling error and then left the 'e' off 'note'.Good CRM.Do as I say,not as I do. |
Rananim, my argument is not with 411A's points re Autopilot use. That is a matter of interpretation, opinion, and, yes, some Atlantic Divide.
Like it or not, this is a UK-based website. Over here, CRM has many times proved its worth. Over here, the Captain is not necessarily God. We accept that he is human, as liable to make mistakes as the next human being and, therefore, when things go wrong, is in need of all the assistance he can get. Of course it is his aircraft, and the decisions are his to make. Simple common sense dictates that he gets all the input he can before making that decision (time permitting) and he also asks for any suggestions that might not have occurred to him. Having done so, he makes his decision and communicates it to anyone who needs to know. In order for this to work, he needs to ensure that a good professional atmosphere is maintained at all times. Acting as if "This is the Cockpit, you are the Resource and I am the Management" will not get the job done. Many people have tried - quite a few have died. Some survived, and therein lies the problem of the aviation dinosaurs. Finally, as I pointed out above, I will not tolerate personal abuse being thrown at anyone here, nor use of terms such as "You have lost the plot". Any contributor who cannot remain within the terms of this forum will be banned. I hope this is clear enough. |
All I can say is I'm glad I don't have to share your cockpit 411A...
Totally agree with Captain Stable; here in the UK we (on the whole) firmly believe in CRM as an effective tool for crew interaction. CRM is there for the benefit of all concerned. If you're going to be so disparaging about CRM then why not just throw all SOPs out the window at the same time and fly the a/c to the deck all on your own??? :rolleyes: As a relatively junior FO (who, for the record, regularly hand-flies the a/c) I find it quite worrying that this kind of attitude still prevails. Getting back to the point, I'll always use common sense in judging if and when it is appropriate to ask the skipper if they mind me hand-flying... What are we trying to prove here?? |
M.85
please dont get off topic, this is good stuff. First of all lets try and stop making assumptions like "if the first officer has to take over..." This assumes that the first officer is a person who posseses less skill and knowledge than the captain when in fact in todays world of seniority list and bankruptsies the opposite is offten true. (CRM...never assume) Now, if you are flying along, it does not matter where, and both pilots (for 411a, they can both figure it out by talking to each other CRM...communication) have assesed (CRM... assess) it would be safe to hand fly then by all means take out the auto-pilot and get some practice (CRM... action) Then all is going well and you are both managing the situation quite easily (CRM... manage) and something happens, does not matter what, both pilots should assess the situation and if it is decided it would be better to engage the auto-pilot then good judgment dictates that it should be re-engaged. If we follow this basic way of doing things we should all get some practise hand flying and we should be able to run the auto-flight systems in the most demanding of situations. As for the old school way of doing things I don't see too much wrong with it but the way things are done now is better and safer. Anyone who can't adjust to the new way of doing things IMHO would have problems ADJUSTING to some scenerio that develops in the cockpit that no one has ever even dreamed about. Old way...good New way...better Like it or lump it. crazy |
When I flew the Dash 8 in Oz it was an SOP to ask the PNF if the PF could hand fly the approach. Reason? if the AP was out then the PNF had to set the hdg bugs and speed bugs etc. This could add a significant amount to their workload if already quite busy.
When doing circling app's, it was easier to disconnect the AP and hand fly it, using the vertical channel (cross hairs, not V bars) for height keeping. Now in the UK I rarely use the AP because it either doesn't work or isn't fitted. I do use the FD but I watch it like a hawk because it has told lies before. Several times a month I'll do raw data approaches because it's good for the scan and I enjoy it. (night freighter Shed). Personally I find the FD a pain during NDB approaches I prefer to fly them raw data. If I had cross needles for the FD then I would just use the vertical channel so I don't go through the MDA. CRM isn't about being polite, that's manners, CRM's about effective communication between all parties. |
Having flown without any A/P until my last Type rating, I was wondering if the "turning the knobs",making sure the A/Ps do the right thing,FMA scanning ...wasnt asking more effort from the pilot than merely flying the bird...
I understand high altitude flying requires the precision of AP due to basic aerodynamic laws(low density,stall speed margin...)but hand flying would keep you in the loop rather than merely operating the A/C..and becoming complecent due to the AP work. M.85 |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:02. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.