Use of Automation Policy in Airlines?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Parabellum, as I said I much agree with you: use the AP when it is more sensible to use it, hand fly frequently when there is no reason not to and keep proficient in both skills, AP and hand flying.
Thanks Despegue, May I know which airline does that OM belong?
For the rest: any more OM paragraphs about it? Thanks!
Thanks Despegue, May I know which airline does that OM belong?
For the rest: any more OM paragraphs about it? Thanks!
Sorry Microburst for my thread drift but......
to all the great pilots on this thread, I agree with you completely, but Flight Data Monitoring & training practices have changed the whole direction of piloting. When you cut your teeth you would have been given a fine apprenticeship by very able Captains. I was lucky to fly with some great guys & allowed to handfly to my hearts content. I try now to do the same to newbies but am fighting a losing battle. For gods sake some of our skippers have a heart attack if autothrust is disengaged. With a young family I am sadly all to aware that the risk to my career is getting too high........for all you guys who despair of new age piloting be thankful you lived in a golden era.
to all the great pilots on this thread, I agree with you completely, but Flight Data Monitoring & training practices have changed the whole direction of piloting. When you cut your teeth you would have been given a fine apprenticeship by very able Captains. I was lucky to fly with some great guys & allowed to handfly to my hearts content. I try now to do the same to newbies but am fighting a losing battle. For gods sake some of our skippers have a heart attack if autothrust is disengaged. With a young family I am sadly all to aware that the risk to my career is getting too high........for all you guys who despair of new age piloting be thankful you lived in a golden era.
Moderator
.. all this talk about PM workload ... how ever did we fly single pilot IFR in the past in poorly equipped aircraft and bad IMC ?
Obviously no-one out in GA/MIL land still flies SP IFR any more as it is plainly just too much of a workload ask ?
Obviously no-one out in GA/MIL land still flies SP IFR any more as it is plainly just too much of a workload ask ?
When was the last time you flew SP IFR John? There are some great things about multi-crew, BUT my impression is that the sum of all cockpit workload in a two-crew cockpit is much higher than the workload of one pilot in a single pilot cockpit, in other words, doubling the number pilots does not halve the workload of each pilot.
The reason being, as far as I can tell, is that as a single pilot there is only one person who needs to have a mental picture of what is happening, and that person is you, the pilot. When the situation changes, your mental picture changes and you change your plans accordingly and you don't to tell anyone about it except maybe ATC or other traffic. In a multi-crew cockpit, you need to communicate with the other pilot to ensure that you both have the same mental picture. This means communicating your thoughts about what is happening and what you plan to do, and sometimes you find out that the other pilot's mental picture doesn't match yours and you need to have a discussion to resolve the differences ("ah, that aircraft is coming in from the south, I thought he was coming in from the west.") This all takes time and can make a situation that would be simple for a single pilot, become more complex for the multi-crew.
So single pilot can have a high workload but it doesn't require any in-cockpit communication. On the other hand all that communication can highlight errors in your own mental picture so hopefully you end up with a safer operation when you have two guys working together rather than just one.
Note I'm not saying that two pilot crews need to talk all the time, a lot of the communication is covered by SOPs in terms of what is expected to happen and when.
My point is that suggesting that there are times when one of the pilots in a two pilot crew may have a high workload in no way implies that that same pilot would have trouble in a single pilot situation. They're different environments that can't be directly compared.
On to the workload of the PM/PNF when the PF is hand-flying. It's not so much that the PNF will have too much work to do, it's just that the PNF will have a much higher workload than the PF (after all, hand flying is pretty easy for those that maintain the skill.) So the PF needs to be mindful of the fact that if they're going to hand fly a departure or approach, they don't do it at a time when it would be most wise to share the workload more evenly.
A good pilot will use a level of automation appropriate to the situation. One of the things that should be considered when deciding what automation is appropriate is the balance of workload across the crew. I think that's all Parabellum was saying.
Incidentally I think the hardest part of hand-flying a multi crew aeroplane is learning to accurately tell the PNF what you want them to do.
The reason being, as far as I can tell, is that as a single pilot there is only one person who needs to have a mental picture of what is happening, and that person is you, the pilot. When the situation changes, your mental picture changes and you change your plans accordingly and you don't to tell anyone about it except maybe ATC or other traffic. In a multi-crew cockpit, you need to communicate with the other pilot to ensure that you both have the same mental picture. This means communicating your thoughts about what is happening and what you plan to do, and sometimes you find out that the other pilot's mental picture doesn't match yours and you need to have a discussion to resolve the differences ("ah, that aircraft is coming in from the south, I thought he was coming in from the west.") This all takes time and can make a situation that would be simple for a single pilot, become more complex for the multi-crew.
So single pilot can have a high workload but it doesn't require any in-cockpit communication. On the other hand all that communication can highlight errors in your own mental picture so hopefully you end up with a safer operation when you have two guys working together rather than just one.
Note I'm not saying that two pilot crews need to talk all the time, a lot of the communication is covered by SOPs in terms of what is expected to happen and when.
My point is that suggesting that there are times when one of the pilots in a two pilot crew may have a high workload in no way implies that that same pilot would have trouble in a single pilot situation. They're different environments that can't be directly compared.
On to the workload of the PM/PNF when the PF is hand-flying. It's not so much that the PNF will have too much work to do, it's just that the PNF will have a much higher workload than the PF (after all, hand flying is pretty easy for those that maintain the skill.) So the PF needs to be mindful of the fact that if they're going to hand fly a departure or approach, they don't do it at a time when it would be most wise to share the workload more evenly.
A good pilot will use a level of automation appropriate to the situation. One of the things that should be considered when deciding what automation is appropriate is the balance of workload across the crew. I think that's all Parabellum was saying.
Incidentally I think the hardest part of hand-flying a multi crew aeroplane is learning to accurately tell the PNF what you want them to do.
Moderator
Once again my attempt at humour falls flat on its face ... eventually, I'll take the hint and stop trying ...
Granted it's a while since I have dallied with SP IFR operations. Main background is 2-crew and 3-crew (and the occasional 4-crew when we needed to take a nav with us to hold our hands and help us get lost). I far prefer multicrew operation - you have someone to have a beer with on overnights and, when it works well, it works really well. On the other hand, when it falls in a heap, it does so to a greater extent than the SP operation.
A good pilot will use a level of automation appropriate to the situation
sums it up and that good pilot will slide the level adopted one way or the other according to the circumstances of the moment ... at the end of the day, the aim, having left A, is to arrive at B in a condition not materially different to that pertaining during the departure from A .. and not having sustained too many frights along the way ?
Granted it's a while since I have dallied with SP IFR operations. Main background is 2-crew and 3-crew (and the occasional 4-crew when we needed to take a nav with us to hold our hands and help us get lost). I far prefer multicrew operation - you have someone to have a beer with on overnights and, when it works well, it works really well. On the other hand, when it falls in a heap, it does so to a greater extent than the SP operation.
A good pilot will use a level of automation appropriate to the situation
sums it up and that good pilot will slide the level adopted one way or the other according to the circumstances of the moment ... at the end of the day, the aim, having left A, is to arrive at B in a condition not materially different to that pertaining during the departure from A .. and not having sustained too many frights along the way ?
I got that it may have been pure humour/satire, but those sentiments have been expressed seriously on this forum enough that it triggered my little "SP IFR is not all that difficult" speech
Last edited by AerocatS2A; 3rd Jul 2009 at 02:42. Reason: Spelling, I can pick up SOME errors all by myself.
Moderator
that it triggered my little "SP IFR is not all that difficult" speech
I'm with you on that one. I can relate an anecdote at my own expense on this subject.
For reasons not quite understood, I was lucky enough to get into airlines without any I/F background - to put this in perspective, my intake mates all had thousands of hours GA SP IFR. After three years on the Fokker, and while moving onto the Electra, I decided I ought to pick up a Class One rating.
Off I go to MB to discuss the matter with Rick Tate and John Lindsay, whom I knew reasonably well from my ANR 40 work. With straight faces, albeit with impish grins, they suggested that I go do a little bit of SP practice and then come back to do the test.
Sounded straight forward enough to me at the time.
So I co-opted a good mate to give me some on the quiet practice. First trip out was in an Aztruck on a dirty, dark, rough as guts night from EN up to MNG or somewhere similar and back. While he sat in the other seat (laughing his silly head off while making sure I wasn't going to kill both of us) I was sweating and cursing while trying to keep the aircraft right side up and get from A to B (no autopilot, raw data .. usual GA stuff). To cut a long story short, we eventually got back to EN in one piece and, over a cup of coffee, I observed something along the lines of "might need a tad more practice than I anticipated" .. a very quick lesson for me in how much more the workload is SP when compared to 2-/3-crew. Finished the rating a month or two later after a few practice flights and greatly appreciated the learning experience.
"SP IFR is not all that difficult"
The only folk who might make (such a silly) statement are folk who have never flown SP IFR. My admiration for the day-in-day-out GA SP guys skyrocketed as a result of the exercise.
I'm with you on that one. I can relate an anecdote at my own expense on this subject.
For reasons not quite understood, I was lucky enough to get into airlines without any I/F background - to put this in perspective, my intake mates all had thousands of hours GA SP IFR. After three years on the Fokker, and while moving onto the Electra, I decided I ought to pick up a Class One rating.
Off I go to MB to discuss the matter with Rick Tate and John Lindsay, whom I knew reasonably well from my ANR 40 work. With straight faces, albeit with impish grins, they suggested that I go do a little bit of SP practice and then come back to do the test.
Sounded straight forward enough to me at the time.
So I co-opted a good mate to give me some on the quiet practice. First trip out was in an Aztruck on a dirty, dark, rough as guts night from EN up to MNG or somewhere similar and back. While he sat in the other seat (laughing his silly head off while making sure I wasn't going to kill both of us) I was sweating and cursing while trying to keep the aircraft right side up and get from A to B (no autopilot, raw data .. usual GA stuff). To cut a long story short, we eventually got back to EN in one piece and, over a cup of coffee, I observed something along the lines of "might need a tad more practice than I anticipated" .. a very quick lesson for me in how much more the workload is SP when compared to 2-/3-crew. Finished the rating a month or two later after a few practice flights and greatly appreciated the learning experience.
"SP IFR is not all that difficult"
The only folk who might make (such a silly) statement are folk who have never flown SP IFR. My admiration for the day-in-day-out GA SP guys skyrocketed as a result of the exercise.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: location
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can remember, not so very long ago, one UK airline where the pilots took it in turns to do everything backwards and forwards to Aldergrove out of LHR. All PF and PM tasks were undertaken by the handling pilot. This probably doesn't demonstrate the most sensible cockpit management but proves what is possible by one pilot in a multi crew cockpit. Indeed most pilots of a certain generation will have done a pilot incapacitation drill where they were solely responsible for the arrival.
In both cases the PM should have been able to pick up on what was going on and keep himself 'in the loop' by simply monitoring what was happening. If not, it strikes me that they are lacking a certain amount of 'aviation maturity.' I have no doubt that for 99% of pilots, total reliance on automation will ensure a trouble free, if dull, uneventful career. For the 1% who are unlucky enough to have some kind of unannunciated failure that requires some kind of stick and rudder skill, they will be glad that they put their PM under a little pressure once in a while.
In both cases the PM should have been able to pick up on what was going on and keep himself 'in the loop' by simply monitoring what was happening. If not, it strikes me that they are lacking a certain amount of 'aviation maturity.' I have no doubt that for 99% of pilots, total reliance on automation will ensure a trouble free, if dull, uneventful career. For the 1% who are unlucky enough to have some kind of unannunciated failure that requires some kind of stick and rudder skill, they will be glad that they put their PM under a little pressure once in a while.
Yes I can imagine how going from multi-crew to SP would be interesting. I went in the usual direction and so have had the pleasant experience of finding that as your career progresses, you get paid more money to fly bigger aeroplanes that are in many ways easier to fly, or at least you have a lot more help at your disposal.
I don't mean to say that SP IFR is easy, just that's it's not as difficult as some make it out to be. There are some SP IFR pilots around who find the transition to multi crew very difficult and some just don't come up to scratch at all. It's a different set of skills.
I don't mean to say that SP IFR is easy, just that's it's not as difficult as some make it out to be. There are some SP IFR pilots around who find the transition to multi crew very difficult and some just don't come up to scratch at all. It's a different set of skills.
Moderator
It's a different set of skills.
But you need to have done both to understand and appreciate that.
the pilots took it in turns to do everything backwards and forwards to Aldergrove out of LHR.
But it doesn't quite work that way. I had been doing just that on the Fokker for quite some time which lulled me into a totally over-rated and false assessment of my then current abilities.
It's a whole different ballgame when you are "IT" and no-one is there to lend you a hand if the going gets tough ... (even worse when the guy who isn't there is in the other seat laughing his head off .. )
But you need to have done both to understand and appreciate that.
the pilots took it in turns to do everything backwards and forwards to Aldergrove out of LHR.
But it doesn't quite work that way. I had been doing just that on the Fokker for quite some time which lulled me into a totally over-rated and false assessment of my then current abilities.
It's a whole different ballgame when you are "IT" and no-one is there to lend you a hand if the going gets tough ... (even worse when the guy who isn't there is in the other seat laughing his head off .. )
"SP IFR is not all that difficult"
The only folk who might make (such a silly) statement are folk who have never flown SP IFR. My admiration for the day-in-day-out GA SP guys skyrocketed as a result of the exercise.
The only folk who might make (such a silly) statement are folk who have never flown SP IFR. My admiration for the day-in-day-out GA SP guys skyrocketed as a result of the exercise.
I think I use a skewed definition of "difficult" which doesn't help. I've been asked if a Pitts Special is difficult to land and I'd say "no, it's easy because it'll do just what you tell it to, but you have to tell it to do the right things." This probably overlooks the fact that telling it to do the right things is the hard bit. And when I say SP IFR is "not all that difficult" I'm probably overlooking that it only becomes easier when you are well prepared and well organised, and in many ways that is the difficult bit.
Anyway, sorry for continuing the hijack.
Back on topic, I can't quote our OM but we're expected to use automation to its fullest extant so that we can better manage the situation we're in. We are also expected to be able to hand-fly on raw data when necessary and you can't do that without practice. Luckily for us we have plenty of opportunity to practice hand-flying when we're on task and we don't have any pesky passengers to worry about, so we generally keep the flying skills up to a reasonable standard. Also our silly autopilot is not certified to fly an approach on one engine so all the interesting stuff in the simulator gets hand-flown.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: beyond PNR .. as always
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Microburst,
My company SOP (737), the maximum for flying manually is 20.000 ft.
The lowest of using automation is "Approaching minium" (100 ft to DA/MDA).
don't ask me why though.
My company SOP (737), the maximum for flying manually is 20.000 ft.
The lowest of using automation is "Approaching minium" (100 ft to DA/MDA).
don't ask me why though.
Aviator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Norveg
Posts: 483
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our OM is, luckily, pretty ambiguous:
OM-A. "Automation is the insertion of a machine function between the human and the task. The definition applies to all levels of automation. The purpose of automation is to aid the pilot through facilitation and enhanced situation awareness. Automation should commensurate with priorities of safety and punctuality." ...whatever that means
Other than that, it is up to the PF to to whatever he/she feels like ( and the captain agrees). We are encouraged to hand fly instrument approaches every now and then when conditions permit (i.e. not in the middle of a blizzard at night). This also goes for SIDs and STARS.
I also fly visual approaches whenever I can. I always switch off the flight directors and autothrottle. It is quite sad to see many pilots "hand fly" a visual or instrument approach using HDG SEL/ VS/ FDs, and always depending on the FMC to check the vertical bearing to the runway, program all sorts of fixes, radials, extended centrelines and what not. It is a vicious circle, where piloting skills are allowed to keep deteriorating, and I see way too many pilots that are utterly incapable of executing a nice idle thrust, constant descend visual approach without having to refer to the GP or other electronic cues. I even heard that EasyJet does not allow their crews to fly visual approaches; can anyone confirm this?
OM-A. "Automation is the insertion of a machine function between the human and the task. The definition applies to all levels of automation. The purpose of automation is to aid the pilot through facilitation and enhanced situation awareness. Automation should commensurate with priorities of safety and punctuality." ...whatever that means
Other than that, it is up to the PF to to whatever he/she feels like ( and the captain agrees). We are encouraged to hand fly instrument approaches every now and then when conditions permit (i.e. not in the middle of a blizzard at night). This also goes for SIDs and STARS.
I also fly visual approaches whenever I can. I always switch off the flight directors and autothrottle. It is quite sad to see many pilots "hand fly" a visual or instrument approach using HDG SEL/ VS/ FDs, and always depending on the FMC to check the vertical bearing to the runway, program all sorts of fixes, radials, extended centrelines and what not. It is a vicious circle, where piloting skills are allowed to keep deteriorating, and I see way too many pilots that are utterly incapable of executing a nice idle thrust, constant descend visual approach without having to refer to the GP or other electronic cues. I even heard that EasyJet does not allow their crews to fly visual approaches; can anyone confirm this?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that's a lot of nonsense! I work for the big orange company and we are given pretty much free reign to fly as we see fit. I often fly visual/raw data approaches with the proviso that it is appropriate to do so in the prevailing conditions and environment.
Best Regards
O.P
Best Regards
O.P
