Automatics versus flying skills - Are some pilots scared to fly by hand?
Thread Starter
Automatics versus flying skills - Are some pilots scared to fly by hand?
I am not certain which forum is appropriate for this question but here goes anyway.
Subject. Flight Simulator Recurrent training. There has always been a marked divergence of opinion on the relevance or otherwise of raw data manual handling skills in modern aircraft; particularly taking into account the superb reliability of automation.
Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, October 13th, 2008, has published an article by Frances Fiorino called "Back to Basics." The opening paragraph says technological advances are shifting the pilot's role to one of flight manager - and at the same time are underlining the need to maintain basic stick and rudder skills. Nothing new in that statement of course.
The author quotes Rory Kay, executive safety officer of the US Air Line Pilots Assocation, which represents 55,000 pilots in North America, as saying he has flown the first automated cockpits to their most advanced...he praises their safety benefits, such as engine monitoring, which present pilots with status messages they would not be aware of in older cockpits until it was too late. He stresses that proper training in automated cockpits is "absolutely paramount" as is reinforcement of basic stick and rudder skills.
Kay goes on to say "pilots must remember how to apply basic skills, basic airmanship... so you should have two ends of the evolutionary scale - basic training and advanced technology - side by side in the cockpit to complement each other." The NTSB wants to be certain that "if automation breaks down, the pilot knows how to take control and operate the aircraft."
That's all very good stuff of course, but in real life there is evidence that airline managements don't want a bar of manual flying skills and may even actively discourage pilots from disconnecting the automatics until forced to do so in the last few hundred feet from the threshold. During simulator recurrent training, and even type rating training it is rare to see time devoted to raw data skills, let alone actually flying the aircraft by hand sans autothrottle and FD.
A captain decided to disconnect the automatics and hand fly from 15,000 feet on descent. He also switched off the flight director knowing it would be a simple matter to switch back to automatics if needed operationally. Not a cloud in the sky and aircraft maintaining dead on flight planned track.
The first officer immediately objected and became quite vocal saying it was increasing his stress levels because instead of "monitoring" the captains "monitoring" of the automatics, the first officer was forced to sit bolt upright in his seat to closely "monitor the captains flying". The captain proceeded to fly a perfectly safe approach and landing and afterwards asked the shaken first officer why he objected to the captain keeping his hand in on basic skills. The first officer replied he was not used to watching hand flying in any of his other airline jobs as first officer and it was just pure luck this time that the descent and landing was within "tolerances." Pure luck of course was sheer nonsense. The captain was a skilful operator because he kept his hand in
Granted, this may seem an extreme case of a twitchy first officer, but it was obvious here was one pilot who lacked the confidence to keep up his own basic skills and derided the captain for "risking lives."
When even the manufacturers advise that automation skills need to be practiced either in the simulator or airborne - naturally depending on circumstances at the time - and also that manipulative skills must complement automation skills - why is it there are pilots out there that are so lacking in self confidence that they perceive manual skills as unnecessary and even dangerous? And these are the captains of the future! Scary isn't it?
Why have not these pilots who are so utterly dependant on automatics for comfort, exposed in their recurrent simulator training and forced into keeping their skills from eroding whether they like it or not? Is it because most simulator sessions are filled with pushing buttons and staring fixedly at MAP modes and the check pilots themselves are not convinced that basic stick and rudder skills are essential? That being so - and I suspect that is the case - then the authors of all the articles on automation complacency are simply wasting their writing skills because no one believes there is a problem..
Subject. Flight Simulator Recurrent training. There has always been a marked divergence of opinion on the relevance or otherwise of raw data manual handling skills in modern aircraft; particularly taking into account the superb reliability of automation.
Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, October 13th, 2008, has published an article by Frances Fiorino called "Back to Basics." The opening paragraph says technological advances are shifting the pilot's role to one of flight manager - and at the same time are underlining the need to maintain basic stick and rudder skills. Nothing new in that statement of course.
The author quotes Rory Kay, executive safety officer of the US Air Line Pilots Assocation, which represents 55,000 pilots in North America, as saying he has flown the first automated cockpits to their most advanced...he praises their safety benefits, such as engine monitoring, which present pilots with status messages they would not be aware of in older cockpits until it was too late. He stresses that proper training in automated cockpits is "absolutely paramount" as is reinforcement of basic stick and rudder skills.
Kay goes on to say "pilots must remember how to apply basic skills, basic airmanship... so you should have two ends of the evolutionary scale - basic training and advanced technology - side by side in the cockpit to complement each other." The NTSB wants to be certain that "if automation breaks down, the pilot knows how to take control and operate the aircraft."
That's all very good stuff of course, but in real life there is evidence that airline managements don't want a bar of manual flying skills and may even actively discourage pilots from disconnecting the automatics until forced to do so in the last few hundred feet from the threshold. During simulator recurrent training, and even type rating training it is rare to see time devoted to raw data skills, let alone actually flying the aircraft by hand sans autothrottle and FD.
A captain decided to disconnect the automatics and hand fly from 15,000 feet on descent. He also switched off the flight director knowing it would be a simple matter to switch back to automatics if needed operationally. Not a cloud in the sky and aircraft maintaining dead on flight planned track.
The first officer immediately objected and became quite vocal saying it was increasing his stress levels because instead of "monitoring" the captains "monitoring" of the automatics, the first officer was forced to sit bolt upright in his seat to closely "monitor the captains flying". The captain proceeded to fly a perfectly safe approach and landing and afterwards asked the shaken first officer why he objected to the captain keeping his hand in on basic skills. The first officer replied he was not used to watching hand flying in any of his other airline jobs as first officer and it was just pure luck this time that the descent and landing was within "tolerances." Pure luck of course was sheer nonsense. The captain was a skilful operator because he kept his hand in
Granted, this may seem an extreme case of a twitchy first officer, but it was obvious here was one pilot who lacked the confidence to keep up his own basic skills and derided the captain for "risking lives."
When even the manufacturers advise that automation skills need to be practiced either in the simulator or airborne - naturally depending on circumstances at the time - and also that manipulative skills must complement automation skills - why is it there are pilots out there that are so lacking in self confidence that they perceive manual skills as unnecessary and even dangerous? And these are the captains of the future! Scary isn't it?
Why have not these pilots who are so utterly dependant on automatics for comfort, exposed in their recurrent simulator training and forced into keeping their skills from eroding whether they like it or not? Is it because most simulator sessions are filled with pushing buttons and staring fixedly at MAP modes and the check pilots themselves are not convinced that basic stick and rudder skills are essential? That being so - and I suspect that is the case - then the authors of all the articles on automation complacency are simply wasting their writing skills because no one believes there is a problem..
Last edited by Centaurus; 20th Oct 2008 at 08:11.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I dunno about other countries requirements, but over here a mandatory part of each six months check is a manual raw data one engine inoperative go around, radar vectored pattern and precision approach, that has to be done following a normal FD manual flown one engine inoperative ILS down to minimum or below with FD failure at go-around.
My company encourages us to fly raw data, however at the same time we should take into account the general situation, workload, weather situation and other factors so most of us tend to do it at their homebase and smaller airports with less traffic which results usually in less workload. Some of course grow lazy until they realize its only a month til they have to do their SIM training and start doing raw data approaches again, most try to keep on the same level of training at all times which means fairly regular raw data flying throughout the normal flying schedule.
My company encourages us to fly raw data, however at the same time we should take into account the general situation, workload, weather situation and other factors so most of us tend to do it at their homebase and smaller airports with less traffic which results usually in less workload. Some of course grow lazy until they realize its only a month til they have to do their SIM training and start doing raw data approaches again, most try to keep on the same level of training at all times which means fairly regular raw data flying throughout the normal flying schedule.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every sim session we have includes Raw Data one-engine ILS approach with minumum Cat1 weather and some 15kts. crosswind,
A non-published manually flown holding, followed by a procedural NDB approach,
Airwork, such as Stalls and Steep turns. This is where the simulator is for, not for flying the MCP!!
My collegues and me normally always fly the approach sans FD, except in bad weather conditions.
Mostly Belgian Cockpit crew.
A non-published manually flown holding, followed by a procedural NDB approach,
Airwork, such as Stalls and Steep turns. This is where the simulator is for, not for flying the MCP!!
My collegues and me normally always fly the approach sans FD, except in bad weather conditions.
Mostly Belgian Cockpit crew.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Thailand
Posts: 942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been flying for some years before the Collins FD 108 was introduced on B707s, using such things as Decca and Omega for navigation and a rudimentary PDCS to assist the Flight Engineer in manually setting engine power, I can assure you that piloting skills were very different then, compared to today. Different.
All we ever did then was 'basic' flying. NAV switch, what is that?
Now we have Auto-pilots engaged at Take off, Lnav and Vnav engaged almost as we lift off and spend our time 'monitoring' the automatics.
If you lose all your automatic systems then a pilot without 'basic' flying skills will have a very hard time keeping the show on an even keel until he can land and get it all fixed.
Observing and monitoring the closed loop system from outside is very different from being in the loop itself, much less constituting the entire loop if all is lost.
However, my advice would be to look at the statistics from Mess'rs Boeing and Airbus regarding FD failures in the last 20 years (almost zero) and compare that with the number of incorrectly calculated performance data, engine failures/flame-outs, incorrect configurations, loss of spatial awareness, lack of ability in adverse weather and all the other elements that cause the majority of accidents and practice accordingly.
Flying a departure or an arrival without a FD hardly constitutes an increase in one's 'basic' flying skills. It merely removes those features built into the very system that has been installed to increase flight safety.
If your reasoning is that you ought to 'practice' raw data flying in case the automatics fail, then what is the point of doing such practice when the weather is severe CAVOK? Surely, you are reasoning that you need these skills in the event it all goes tits-up when the weather is awful? If the weather is fine then simply look out of the window and keep some power on until the wheels touch the ground.
Much better to hone your flight planning, briefing, performance calculations, normal and non normal procedures and getting the flare right than wasting your time flying around with the FD switched off!
Priorities.........
All we ever did then was 'basic' flying. NAV switch, what is that?
Now we have Auto-pilots engaged at Take off, Lnav and Vnav engaged almost as we lift off and spend our time 'monitoring' the automatics.
If you lose all your automatic systems then a pilot without 'basic' flying skills will have a very hard time keeping the show on an even keel until he can land and get it all fixed.
Observing and monitoring the closed loop system from outside is very different from being in the loop itself, much less constituting the entire loop if all is lost.
However, my advice would be to look at the statistics from Mess'rs Boeing and Airbus regarding FD failures in the last 20 years (almost zero) and compare that with the number of incorrectly calculated performance data, engine failures/flame-outs, incorrect configurations, loss of spatial awareness, lack of ability in adverse weather and all the other elements that cause the majority of accidents and practice accordingly.
Flying a departure or an arrival without a FD hardly constitutes an increase in one's 'basic' flying skills. It merely removes those features built into the very system that has been installed to increase flight safety.
If your reasoning is that you ought to 'practice' raw data flying in case the automatics fail, then what is the point of doing such practice when the weather is severe CAVOK? Surely, you are reasoning that you need these skills in the event it all goes tits-up when the weather is awful? If the weather is fine then simply look out of the window and keep some power on until the wheels touch the ground.
Much better to hone your flight planning, briefing, performance calculations, normal and non normal procedures and getting the flare right than wasting your time flying around with the FD switched off!
Priorities.........
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AEP
Age: 80
Posts: 1,420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manual or autoland...? RANT -
For the past 15 years, I have averaged an estimated 25 landings per year.
Do you really believe I would use the autoland...?
Yes... if maintenance/engineering wants to know if it works...
And then, that will be the F/O's sector... NOT MINE...
I practice autoland in... simulators.
xxx
I reserve the right to handfly from takeoff until about 10,000 feet in climb.
And handfly the approach and landing. Is that too much to ask...?
I know it is strange to you Geeks and Nerds to fly "needle, ball and airspeed"...
Well, after all, I fly the old 747s... with technology similar to Tiger Moths.
Never got trained to fly with a TV screen in front of me.
If at least they had good aviation movies, I might try...
xxx
I have 3 more landings to go... then RETIREMENT...
And glad to retire with the way aviation/airmanship has become.
xxx
Happy contrails
Do you really believe I would use the autoland...?
Yes... if maintenance/engineering wants to know if it works...
And then, that will be the F/O's sector... NOT MINE...
I practice autoland in... simulators.
xxx
I reserve the right to handfly from takeoff until about 10,000 feet in climb.
And handfly the approach and landing. Is that too much to ask...?
I know it is strange to you Geeks and Nerds to fly "needle, ball and airspeed"...
Well, after all, I fly the old 747s... with technology similar to Tiger Moths.
Never got trained to fly with a TV screen in front of me.
If at least they had good aviation movies, I might try...
xxx
I have 3 more landings to go... then RETIREMENT...
And glad to retire with the way aviation/airmanship has become.
xxx
Happy contrails
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't imagine that pilots in general, or very many at that, are afraid to hand fly the airplane. We normally hand fly through at least FL180, and I usually hand fly my approaches. We have operational requirements when on RNAV arrivals and when flying by RNAV to have the flight director operational and the autopilot available...doesn't have to be engaged.
The flight director can be a help or a hinderance. Our standard policy is to bias the vertical bar out of the way so it doesn't form a distraction. After takeoff, we'll usually call for airspeed-hold on the FD, but the rule as always is to fly through the flight director, rather than follow it. One should still be flying the airplane, rather than simply following behind it.
I find that if I have questions regarding what the autopilot is doing, my first action is to disconnect the autopilot and handfly. I see that nearly everyone around me does the same.
The autopilot or FD are nothing more than tools; the airplane flies fine with or without them.
The flight director can be a help or a hinderance. Our standard policy is to bias the vertical bar out of the way so it doesn't form a distraction. After takeoff, we'll usually call for airspeed-hold on the FD, but the rule as always is to fly through the flight director, rather than follow it. One should still be flying the airplane, rather than simply following behind it.
I find that if I have questions regarding what the autopilot is doing, my first action is to disconnect the autopilot and handfly. I see that nearly everyone around me does the same.
The autopilot or FD are nothing more than tools; the airplane flies fine with or without them.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first officer immediately objected and became quite vocal saying it was increasing his stress levels because instead of "monitoring" the captains "monitoring" of the automatics, the first officer was forced to sit bolt upright in his seat to closely "monitor the captains flying".
There is, of course, quite a valid solution to this 'problem.'
Simply trade the present first officer in for a new one, allowing the former to quietly exit through the HR door... permanently.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My company has just tacked on an hour of manual handling for each pilot at each OPC/LPC session with no real syllabus - it's up to you what you want to practice. Sounds like a good idea to me 
UK charter operating medium twinjets.
B&S
UK charter operating medium twinjets.
B&S
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Finland
Age: 77
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The passengers expect you to use the automatics" was posted in the KLM simulator in Amsterdam and I agree with that statement.
Would you be happy if your surgeon said he was going to do your hip replacement with the 1950's equipment just to practice his hand skills?
Would you be happy if your surgeon said he was going to do your hip replacement with the 1950's equipment just to practice his hand skills?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you be happy if your surgeon said he was going to do your hip replacement with the 1950's equipment just to practice his hand skills?
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No obejection to a hand flown approach provided you are not upping the workload of the NHP above a reasonable level in a congested and busy terminal approach area with frequent RT as well as speed and height changes and configuration changes.
Psychophysiological entity
However, my advice would be to look at the statistics from Mess'rs Boeing and Airbus regarding FD failures in the last 20 years (almost zero) and compare that with the number of incorrectly calculated performance data, engine failures/flame-outs, incorrect configurations, loss of spatial awareness, lack of ability in adverse weather and all the other elements that cause the majority of accidents and practice accordingly.
Maybe that's because the black boxes get all the practice.
Seriously, this is just an extension of the thread last week. Search Davis.
The Da Vinci machine does a lot of the 'Handling' in surgery these days. In Canada, a brain surgeon abandoned the machine he was using to go manual. That piece of kit cost 5 times that of the Da Vinci. Basic skills are what you are paid to carry onto that aircraft. Abandon those, and you will watch black boxes take off without you within 20 years.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Abandon those, and you will watch black boxes take off without you within 20 years.
I suspect whether we like it or not, it will be the reality in 20 years.
I'm fortunate to be flying a machine presently that requires good situational awareness and basic flying skills, because there's a lot the airplane just won't do for you...which in my view is as it should be. I come from a crop dusting, hands-on, background, and I see hands-on skills as important, be it stick and rudder or instrument flying. However, I do see what I'd deem to be a significant decrease in stick skills today, and with increasing automation, perhaps an over reliance upon automation.
A few years ago I saw a report on the TV about an aircraft upset involving a regional turbopropeller airplane. The description sounded somewhat like a tailplane stall, with reports of a roll to the inverted and a nose down pitch of 30-45 degrees. I was absolutely horrified to see the captain on that flight be interviewed live, and say (I kid you not) that the airline needed to seek better instruments because "my instruments gave me no meaningful information." He was upset, and rather than keep shut and appear the fool, he proverbially opened his mouth and removed all doubt. He admitted, live on national television, that he couldn't read his instruments during the upset, and said he couldn't figure out which way was up.
I shudder to imagine that one day any of my family might be on a flight commanded by someone such as this, or even that someone such as this managed to pass one or more checkride. Yet he did. Worse, he became a captain. He did so in a company where the choices were among those who bought their jobs, who attended a school run by the airline, and subsequently went to work...so the airplanes were staffed by inexperienced pilots who knew nothing outside what they'd been told in a classroom...having been taught by other inexperienced pilots.
I refer to this as the "heritage of inexperience," and it's rife throughout the industry today. We've just come from one of the largest hiring booms in the history of the industry, on a global scale, and we see a lot of pilots in seats what have never proven themselves. Pilots who've never actually experienced an emergency outside a simulator, who refer to their seniors in respectful tones such as "dude," and upon reflection of the miracle of aviation are inspired to say "way cool." A crowd that's affectionately referred to in the cockpit as "children of the magenta line."
I flew with one a few years ago. Never mind partial panel. Cover up his EHSI display, and take away the map, and he couldn't navigate to save his life, let alone fly a straight line. I forwarded a letter to the chief pilot recommending his dismissal...as did every other Captain I knew. He eventually busted out of a recurrent...didn't make it through the oral in the ground school...but he should never have been there in the first place. I watched him get lost, completely disoriented, five times in the traffic pattern on a VMC night...with me bugging him around using the magic magenta line....he was that bad.
The same kid, one night out of Tampa, engaged the yaw damper on me before I asked. He did it about the same time as we got some wake turbulence, and while I was trying to use the rudders, the airplane was trying to prevent it. I kicked the yaw damp off, and he reached up and reset it. I told him to leave it alone...he didn't understand, didn't listen. He didn't understand why someone would want to fly the airplane instead of turning the airplane over to the automation and hoping the automation would handle it.
Yes, they're out there. I can only hope that they are few, and in the minority. With or without them, however, I suspect that the time is fast approaching when pilots will be relegated to observers rather than participants.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He admitted, live on national television, that he couldn't read his instruments during the upset, and said he couldn't figure out which way was up.
There is nothing wrong if the captain wants to enjoy a little or practise/refresh a little hand flying. A little CRM to communicate with the FO before knocking the A/P could have help.Nonetheless,not a cloud in the sky doesn't necessary means that there would be no other threats until touch down.How about traffic,complicated ATC vectors and of course,a weak FO that couldn't cope with the workload? These factors sure play a bigger role than having a little bit of manual flying fun.
It is also the FO's right to speak up to the captain if he is finding it hard to cope.Send him back for some training if you have to after the flight,but for that very moment,noone need a distressed right hand man.
It is also the FO's right to speak up to the captain if he is finding it hard to cope.Send him back for some training if you have to after the flight,but for that very moment,noone need a distressed right hand man.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do you think these incidents didn't happen before automation? Aircraft have been crashing since long before the flight director was invented because humans got disorientated and couldn't interpret their instruments.
He was gambling by being in the airplane, and the company, by putting him there. In my book, that's criminal.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: France
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Manual or Autoland
BelAgrgUSA:
Thanks for the good post. In my opinion a pilot should be capable of hand flying from take-off to final cruise level and the reverse to a landing. To be capable you need to practice from time to time.
All the best in your retirement, it is normal to find out that there is never enough time to do all the things that you may have planned.
Well done
Tmb
Thanks for the good post. In my opinion a pilot should be capable of hand flying from take-off to final cruise level and the reverse to a landing. To be capable you need to practice from time to time.
All the best in your retirement, it is normal to find out that there is never enough time to do all the things that you may have planned.
Well done
Tmb
Try before lunch! ....granted they weren't in a 747 though
Congratulations BelagrUSA, hope you enjoy your last three flights. I enjoy your posts and expect you to post more regularly with all the spare time coming your way
Congratulations BelagrUSA, hope you enjoy your last three flights. I enjoy your posts and expect you to post more regularly with all the spare time coming your way
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"you will watch black boxes take off without you within 20 years."
It will never happen. Apart from the passengers not accepting it, (they are nervous enough now with human crew), there is the security issue.
Terrorists are becoming ever more sophisticated and the idea that you can have aircraft aloft, full of PAX but no pilots is, to be honest, quite ridiculous.
It would be Oh so too easy for terrorist to either, a). Take over a ground controlling station and then cause mayhem or b). Set up transmission equipment that will over-ride the official ground equipment. A few dedicated suicide terrorists for case a). and a few dedicated hackers for case b). Every new computer security invention is hacked within weeks at the moment.
Next, try to find insurance cover that will even look at you when you tell them you want to fly a pilot less aircraft worth $150,000,000 and 350 passengers at liability coverage of $1,000,000 each into major airports where third party insurance requirements run to thousands of millions of $, as I said at the beginning, it will never happen.
It will never happen. Apart from the passengers not accepting it, (they are nervous enough now with human crew), there is the security issue.
Terrorists are becoming ever more sophisticated and the idea that you can have aircraft aloft, full of PAX but no pilots is, to be honest, quite ridiculous.
It would be Oh so too easy for terrorist to either, a). Take over a ground controlling station and then cause mayhem or b). Set up transmission equipment that will over-ride the official ground equipment. A few dedicated suicide terrorists for case a). and a few dedicated hackers for case b). Every new computer security invention is hacked within weeks at the moment.
Next, try to find insurance cover that will even look at you when you tell them you want to fly a pilot less aircraft worth $150,000,000 and 350 passengers at liability coverage of $1,000,000 each into major airports where third party insurance requirements run to thousands of millions of $, as I said at the beginning, it will never happen.