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...

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???????

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.

Tom thats the part of the Professor's reply that makes his observation invalid. Too many "smart people" put their faith in technology and its supposed reliability. Research the philosophy behind the 777 FT-ADIRU then look up the report on the MAS 777 out of Perth, Australia.

'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

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.

Send them to China :E

[highlighted by me]

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?

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.

Thats why these days its not even a requirement anymore! No more failures, everyone happy... :confused::ugh:

Here I agree that the opening statement might be out of context. Also in my airline hand flying is allowed, but only up to and down from a certain flight level. 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.:=

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!)

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.

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

And of course, the machines will take over, and Hollywood will make a movie about it.

You are right. Friend of mine is senior instructor type at Boeing. We discussed this automation v manual skills and the perceived need to keep up handling skills to prevent their atrophy. The operative word is "perceived". I was then told the 787 (for example) was designed on the assumption it will be flown by incompetent pilots.

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.

'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.....

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

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."

I try to request an approach with reduced levels of automation about once per week and even then if the weather is good. In about 400 hours of line flying, that request was refused by captains (mostly guys from the so-called brave age) with them kindly advising me: "I would rather you do that with a trainer thank you very much!". So the other day I flew with a trainer who let me fly raw data manual thrust from about 10,000 all the way down into a quiet airfield. The unfamiliarity of flying this way was astounding after so long of not being allowed to do it. As the instructor said: Those who prevent you from exercising your piloting skills are weak and will make you weak pilots over time too. This all in an airline where we are not prohibited from flying manually.

So from my experience, as a relatively new jet pilot and keen individual who wishes to remain in check, I find most of my senior colleagues have very little faith in the skills and abilities of their FOs. This is the nature of the beast we are dealing with and the attitude needs to change.

Or maybe the captain who refused your request and directed you to a line trainer did so because he did not feel like do extra than what he was paid for on the day.
He may have accepted another day,in any case is he obliged to answer your request.
One day you will be on the left with a greener than green asking you to fly manually when you just had a loooong week and cant be bothered,,,you will send him to the trainers too.

Both need to be willing to do extra work,YOUR attitude needs to be changed,the captain does NOT OWE you anything,join the ranks,and stop whining.:ugh:

Maybe you should have stayed longer flying those props manually before paying for your 320 line training. :rolleyes:

If the captain deems it's unsafe at the moment to fly manually due to condition of aircraft, crew (fatigue!), ATC, weather, etc. he has every right to ask you to stick with the autopilot in until reasonable altitude. Maybe captain was fatigued after a week of 4 sector days and decided it would be best if use autopilot untill 500ft or so, because PM has much more work to do if PF is flying manually and situational awareness is the first to degrade. There are many reasons why you weren't allowed to fly manually, but this is hardly a forum for this debate - first chance to have a talk is during daily debrief, but if it's a more widespread problem in the company, talk to an instructor or chief pilot.

You have to be aware - it's the captain who is fully responsible for the safety of everybody on the aircraft and he's the one who signs the aircraft. Cockpit is not a democracy, although suggestions from FO should be taken into account when the captain is making critical decisions. Try not to make everything in cockpit about you, more about the entire crew and how each of them thinks and operates and you'll see that captains mostly do very good decisions based on the entire crew's input. Of course there are exceptions, but they should be in minority.

Speakes volumes. Too "super" for a TP?

I disagree. The amount of automation used during the approach should be covered during the approach briefing (and discussed should any questions arise). It would be extremely poor CRM if FO as PF wouldn't mention that he will disconnect AP at FL100 (perhaps suspecting captain would disagree) and then surprising the captain.

I'm not going to justify why I held the the TP job for such a short time to the two sky-gods who think they know how all pilots should go about their career. Life throws many difficult choices at you that are not as black and white as some of you would like to assume. Age, money, location, family situation and level of danger are just some of the factors involved and as two of our guys (one whom was in my joining batch) crashed into the sides of mountains (2 separate incidents) just weeks after me leaving, I feel it was kind of a good move! Does anyone wish to discuss this further?

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about isolated incidents here. I'm talking about most of the guys who I have flown with habitually and routinely turning down such requests, and YES, most certainly, all requests come during the approach briefing and as I stated originally, I only ask when the the situation allows it. In addition to good weather, of course it's got to be a quiet airfield, and as a crew we must be in good shape for it. Please don't assume the naivety of a newbie so easily!

OK, so I've hit a couple of nerves, clearly. I'm sorry, it was not my intention to come across as a selfish glory hunting ****. I was just painting a picture of what I feel some of the obstacles are in trying to avoid automation dependency. The suggestion about asking some of them in the debrief about their reasons for not allowing manual flight is a good one but the backgrounds and cultures of some of the people I fly with make this a move that I might regret.

What a rude and arrogant reply to a perfectly reasonable post by Superpilot. You should be bloody ashamed of yourself :mad:

From my experience, keen and enthusiastic pilots generally retain those attributes long into their flying career. First officers fortunate enough to share the cockpit with such personalities should thank their lucky stars.

As D.P. Davies stated in his fine book, Handling the Big Jets, quote: "The demand of jet transport flying can best be met by enthusiasm. Personal enthusiasm for the job is beyond value because it is a built-in productive force, and those who have it do not have to be poushed into practice and search for knowledge.

Enthusiasm thus generates its own protection. This is the frame of mind which needs to be developed for the best execution of the airline pilot's task" Unquote.

It is usually the lazy captain that has allowed himself to become so automation dependant that he simply cannot be bothered to let his first officer practice his manual flight skills. The common excuse is "workload." Most probably too, he has lost his own youthful passion for technical excellence. He has been there, done that. On autopilot of course. He sees enthusiasm in his F/O as irritating and a damned nuisance. The same personality type is quick to dredge up excuses because all he wants is to sit back and take it easy in the LH seat. In other words don't rock the boat, son. Again, D.B Davies covers that nicely when he states: "As we get older we all become slightly more lazy, slightly more tired."

If the F/O asks to turn off the FD for some hand flying practice, then be thankful he is that keen and enthusiastic for his job; even if you are just in it for the money and nothing else.

Jesus wept!! Here comes more excuses. It wasn't that long ago in another life that this scribe was flying four engine Lincoln bombers on ten hour flights with no weather radar and most of it manual single pilot flying because of old fashioned unreliable autopilots. A week of four sector days would have been most welcome. PM has much more work to do if PF is flying manually? I am quite astonished at such tosh.

Centaurus,your post makes me think of a daddy chicken running to the rescue of his little chick...seriously,come on Centaurus,why should i feel ashamed?
What you quoted me writing was a direct answer to the OP modest:
It is very easy to blame the oh so poor manual skills of a captain who denies manual flying to his colleague.
Dont you think YOU are being arrogant ?? How do you know the captain in question doesnt fly as well as you?maybe the fo should ask for his captain sim checks??
Is refusing an fo to fly manually a lack of enthusiasm,laziness?maybe.
Does it mean the captain cant fly if he has to?probably not!
Recommending such fo to ask the trainers instead such a bad idea?i think not!
The trainers are there for a reason,and selected for the principles you seem to soooo cherish and certainly not the money..:E

I have never denied manual flying to fos,quite the opposite,but I wouldnt blame a captain for refusing,it is his right.
For the OP,use each captain for his strenghts and one day you will decide as a Captain what you believe is most important for your fos to learn from you.
In any case respect your captain for his choice as you would like him to respect you for your request.