Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Raw data manual flight - Airlines

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Raw data manual flight - Airlines

Old 27th Aug 2010, 08:02
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Glorious West Sussex
Age: 72
Posts: 1,016
Aviophage, you say
I rarely use autopilot/autothrottle below 10,000'
and your experience is all Airbus FBW. Do you mean that after T/O you disengage A/THR and fly the departures using manual thrust? That sounds really interesting and I wonder what the advantages are from your perspective. More info please!
TyroPicard is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 08:24
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: A few degrees South
Posts: 813
It is probably easier to come up with a whole bunch of reasons why NOT to handfly, than to learn how to do it.
latetonite is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 08:54
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: slightly left of you
Age: 39
Posts: 362
Not sure if this is true or not, but no reason to doubt it.

I was told that SABENA used to have a policy that 1 in 4 sectors (on average) was to be completely hand flown. No autopilot, no authrottle, no flight directors. From take off to landing. Obviously didn't apply on long haul as that really isn't feasible.

Have to say the one ex sabenien that i had the pleasure of flying with was an excellent pilot both in manual and auto flight.
cortilla is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 10:30
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Well, at Sabena (and other Belgian airlines ), it was GOP (Good Operator Practice) to regulary handfly the complete climb/descend without the damn FD. It was done by everyone, from the first line-training sector.
The training filosophy was to first show/train to fly the aircraft raw-data in a smooth way up to SN standard, and then focus on the various tools that the aircraft has regarding autoflight/management. It proved very safe as there were no accidents since 1961, and still Belgian pilots are regarded as very proficient in general.
The Flight director is for me only a tool to see what the aircraft autopilot system wants to do, and if I do not agree, it is NOT followed. The flight-crew is still the boss, NOT THE COMPUTER.

Any airline that discourages manual flight is in my opinion a hazard to fly on. Any pilot not wanting to fly manually has no business in the cockpit. Mind you, this has to be compensated with adequate training. Flying manually is not just trying to keep altitude, speed and heading. It need to be done in a smooth way, and without losing your sit. awareness. All too often do I see collegues yanking the yoke like their life depends on it where a little pressure is sufficient...
despegue is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 10:46
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Birmingham
Age: 35
Posts: 145
Everybody can fly a raw data departure without FD and AP. Some guys just follow the magenta line. For me that´s laughable. So put the automatics on if you follow the magenta line. Raw data means to me: track the QDMs and radials. Fly as published and do not follow the box. Many collegues dont fly raw data on departure. Why? As preceeding replies say: the FD never failed in 16 years. Be professional.

Flying approaches is another thing. In scandinavia we have many airports which are calm and we can fly every approach we want. Last month i think i fly 2 FD approaches manual. All the other were rawdata out of 7000ft. I feel very good with my aircraft and i finally think its a personal thing. i have seen guys flying every approach with AP and FD down to 200ft at cavok. Every approach. that means in 4 days at least 9 sectors. and they feel good. i couldnt and wouldnt do it like that.

sometimes i have times where the landings get harder. dont know why. i have now more than 3000hours on the 737 and that really sucks;-) any experience on that?
Speedwinner is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 11:07
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Everybody can fly a raw data departure without FD and AP. Some guys just follow the magenta line. For me that´s laughable. So put the automatics on if you follow the magenta line. Raw data means to me: track the QDMs and radials. Fly as published and do not follow the box.
May be so...but it has to be done at an appropriate stage. I'm sure you aren't advocating doing this launching into the London TMA?
Another thing to consider..whilst in the UK many SID's are promulgated on BRNAV (RNP5), increasingly, SID's and STAR's elsewhere are being redesigned to be flown as PRNAV departure and arrival's...hardly appropriate to flick the FD off and track a QDR me thinks.
The biggest problem in my view is the single lack of common sense when it comes to being able to fly visual arrivals or departures...IMHO a far more relevant use of basic flying skills, than say flying pitch and power based on a weight. I was certainly the most on the ball I ever was when I was charter flying down to the med with the bucket and spade operator, where we did a lot of visual approaches and departures.
Monarch Man is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 11:33
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 104
I've only ever had to operate 2 sectors on the 737 without the AP and we still had the FD and AT.

If that's an acceptable argument, then why do we similarly "waste" time with training for engine failures, given that modern engines are very reliable as well
Because its done in the sim not on the line with passengers in the back.

you're kidding yourself if you think that hand flying enhances safety because the opposite is true.

Perhaps you might cite some objective evidence to support such a wide-sweeping statement. Certainly, in some circumstances we would all acknowledge that it makes more sense to drive with the automatics on. However that doesn't cover all bases ....

From a CRM or threat and error management standpoint I find it hard to justify throwing away around half a pilot's worth of resources ( only an estimate IMHO) to better prepare oneself for an AP or FD failure. I did not imply that hand flying was unsafe and it might even be worth accepting a slight degradation of situational awareness by the crew to maintain handling skills. My view is that I can operate to the highest level of safety by making full use of the automatics and that is what the passengers have a right to expect.

CHfour is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 11:39
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: London, England
Posts: 185
I would like to be better at manual flying and probably don't do enough, but departing london TMA with it's many level offs, heading and frequency changes on raw data might be bad "threat error management"
Those of us who are bus drivers, are really just setting an attitude which the computer holds anyway.
If you look at the failures on a bus that would lead to loss of A/P and F/D and require raw data flying (eg dual SFCC) most would not leave you in normal law,
so maybe we need to practice direct law flying as well.
If I am ever (un)fortunate enough to fly with A340 chap who never uses automatics below 10,000 and never touches speedbrakes due to perfect descent planning, I will offer to turn a couple of flight control computers off for him as well and prepare to be amazed at his skills.
FatFlyer is offline  
Old 27th Aug 2010, 15:48
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: East of West and North of South
Posts: 549
0)
737 CL+NG

1)
Operator policy is max use of auto flight. However, allowing any level of automation for practice "during initial departure and approach" when consideration is given to workload and environmental conditions.

2)
I agree completely with my company manual, although my definition of when initial departure ends and when approach begins maybe a bit more stretched than intended. Also the manual doesn't say how often practice is necessary.

3)
Departure:
Normally I will fly with FD/AT on, AP off till clean, and if turning departure till first turn completed - ranging from 4000 - FL100 feet typically. If I am tired or in a busy place (and/or the other guy is tired or not up to par) I will turn the AP on in 1000 feet.

I happily fly raw data departures (A/T off as well) WHEN situation permitting. For me this means home base or non-busy environments + good wx till acceleration altitude, incase of engine failure. I often also choose depending if I find the departure interesting to hand fly (no point or fun in hand flying a straight RNAV departure). I continue to TOC or till I have had enough. I do this 3 or 4 times on average pr. month.

About raw data level off:
Yes, everyone need practice! That is if you want to do them nicely.
Nicely for me means: On speed, at 1500 before, start reduce to exactly 1000fpm, so that you hit 1000fpm at 1000 feet before exactly. Keep exactly 1000fpm till level off. Level off at exact altitude on exact speed.
Most that claim they can do this, but never practice will be all over the place with speed and v/s, and climb with 200fpm the last 500 feet because they are afraid they will overshoot.

This is a good coordination exercise and will help you "keep in touch" with the aircraft in my opinion.


Approach:
The same criteria as above. I happily fly raw data from TOD but most often passing FL200 - FL150. This happens 2 times pr. week on average. Raw data also means selecting VOR/ILS full rose, so there is no descend path to look after.

Rest of the approaches are with full auto till G/S capture normally. And some to 800-500 feet if I am tired or lazy.

All assuming fair weather of course, with cloudbase lower than 800-1000 feet (or higher if high terrain) I don't fly raw data.

Visual approaches and the occasional circling is done with as much help as possible, like programming nice tracks in the FMC and so on and flying with the autopilot until a stressless takeover can be made. Why make unnecessary stress, when you can really enjoy the odd visual approach with nice orientation from e.g. the path indicator (combined with the eyes of course). If you can't do without the toys, it's another matter thought.


Why raw data:
First, I don't want to become a button pusher that can't remember how to fly! Second, I enjoy it.
cosmo kramer is offline  
Old 28th Aug 2010, 13:34
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,159
while using slight rudder pressure to control roll,
Non-standard technique and even slight rudder pedal movements will cause uncomfortable skidding feeling to passengers at the rear and this may cause air-sickness.
Tee Emm is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2010, 16:23
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Europe
Age: 49
Posts: 97
Well, if this were true, it would be the definitive argument for the removal of humans from the flight deck.
Autopilot does a pretty good job of flying the aircraft, but in my experience has proven to be pretty useless as deciding whether or not to divert, or where the best diversion airfield is. Also pretty crap at dealing with passengers, crew, ATC and dispatchers. Humans bring quite a lot to the role that computers are way, way off being able to handle. We'll be here for a while yet, even if the nature of the job changes.

I'm like to practice manual flying to keep my skills current, but I think there is a time and a place for it, and 'every departture/arrival below 10000' is a little too sweeping for me.
spin_doctor is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2010, 16:39
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,160
Tee emm - Oh, the world's about to come to an end.

Seriously, how much rudder pressure does a trimmed a/c need to maintain level flight? Fractions of a pound of pressure? Like the passengers are going to feel that.

Hand flying at altitude? Yeah, I can feel that. Rudder needed to maintain wings level? Imperceptible.
misd-agin is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2010, 17:44
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NE of LON VOR
Age: 50
Posts: 42
Misd-agin, in the UK, we use metric. Stop living in the past with imperial measurements.
Aviophage is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2010, 18:17
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Crinkley Bottom
Posts: 80
Here in the UK we climb in feet, we fly nautical miles, we pressurise our hydraulics in PSI and we don't pick anal holes in peoples posts..grow up Aviophage, try and stick to the topic and quit trolling.
Wazzoo is offline  
Old 29th Aug 2010, 18:39
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The No Transgression Zone
Posts: 2,109
Mavericks

YouTube - BAC-111 Cockpit

although they painted that centerline wrong at the end

just maintain trim for steady coordinated flight and make small correction to maintain flight path
Pugilistic Animus is online now  
Old 30th Aug 2010, 12:08
  #36 (permalink)  
DFC
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
departing london TMA with it's many level offs, heading and frequency changes on raw data might be bad "threat error management"
Indeed.

Seems that the post I made previously went over everyone's head.

What are the requirements for RVSM???????????

So it is impossible to hand fly from start to finish on most flights.

My point was that handing flying is great when the conditions are appropriate but all this talk of "I always hand-fly a complete sector every......" is happening when there is quiet traffic, relatively simple procedures and non RVSM etc which leaves most of the operators out.

There is a time and a place for hand-flying. However, the person responsible must do an informed assessment of the situation first.
DFC is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2010, 12:40
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,509
Departures in manual flight at constant thrust are no big deal. If you're changing frequencies and chasing needles that's different, as it's lateral and the need to think ahead. In EFIS a/c, as someone said, following a magenta line is not really thinking ahead. However, visual approaches from anything upto 50nm out is a piloting pleasure, requires thinking ahead and not just following the VNAV diamond; even better turn it off. A manual visual low drag descending circuit with 180 direction change, or even 270 over the OM or the Rwy itself was SOP in needles & dials a/c in most of the charter destinations in the 80's & 90's. Somehow now, with more super-duper accurate TV presented MAP info some carriers discourage visual approaches and especially manual ones because crews mess them up and cause G/A's. What a statement about the qualities of todays pilots. Very sad. The most basic of avaiation manouevres is frowned upon. All that base training was for naught because they don't want you to do it with pax on board. It's too dangerous. The industry has progressed backwards. If you couldn't fly a competant visual approach at night on line in a B732 you didn't get command. Simple.
RAT 5 is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2010, 12:55
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: USA
Age: 41
Posts: 17
Rat5 relaxe, today we are sitting on a A380 with the coffee infront on that small table 80% less workload, 100% more salary, cool
Taltop is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2010, 13:02
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,951
I'm like to practice manual flying to keep my skills current, but I think there is a time and a place for it,
The 737 series all have a CWS autopilot mode. If people are a bit apprehensive of manual flying due rusty skills then simply leave the AP in CWS and hand fly through the autopilot. That way, you can whip into full automation mode quick as a flash, if you feel you can't hack it in CWS
Centaurus is offline  
Old 30th Aug 2010, 13:07
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 3,951
Hand flying at altitude? Yeah, I can feel that
Is that with you flying - 0r the other bloke
Centaurus is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.