Raw data manual flight - Airlines

[Rick777]

Interesting range of opinions here. I flew the A320 for 4 years and rarely hand flew. Maybe one approach a month because it was so easy. Also I flew mostly into crowded airports and hand flying puts a lot more work on the PM. I found it more of a challenge to use the automation until 200 feet or so for the landing. I then transitioned to the B727. Interesting but no problem with mostly hand flying and no auto throttles. I then went back the AB. Ah relief! Guess I am just lazy.

[Centaurus]

and hand flying puts a lot more work on the PM

Surely you jest. If you are on autopilot all he has to do is to look outside if a fine day or look at a few instruments if IMC. And I forgot - he usually talks on the radio when needed.

Copilots have done this for decades. And if you as captain choose to hand-fly the copilot's job doesn't change from above.

[Todders]

Very modern pilot there....

How's this for you what about when the Co-Pilot/FO is flying????

[Airbus Girl]

Why not have a balance? Automatics in, frees up capacity in busy airspace. If one pilot flying, one doing everything else, then who is monitoring? When its quiet and nice weather, great, brief the other pilot, disconnect everything and fly the thing manually all the way in. If it's quiet and the weather not so nice, the same can apply, provided, if it starts getting too busy/ not so comfortable you are happy to put the automatics back in.

That way, manual flight is practiced in the safest environment, so skills are not lost, yet when its busy you have both pilots monitoring by using the automatics as a 3rd pilot.

Best of both worlds, and surely we are paid for our decision making as much as our flying skills?

[rudderrudderrat]

Hi Airbus Girl,

I agree. I've noticed some pilots won't admit when the work load exceeds their spare capacity and treat re-engagement of the autopilot as a sign of defeat.

It's possibly a hang over from the old days when in the sim, it was a requirement to do everything (except the briefing) with the AP disengaged.

The B.M. accident at Kegworth highlighted the disadvantage of hand flying with a high work load which resulted in the wrong diagnosis of their problem.

[d105]

It's also interesting to see that skills which were once considered basics are now deemed as putting pressure on the PM. The argument that handflying causes the other pilot to be overloaded only stands when the pilots in question were trained with automatics only. Claiming that there's nobody left to "monitor" sounds odd to me. That shouldn't even be an issue, it should be considered as basic skill.

[DFC]

The argument that handflying causes the other pilot to be overloaded only stands when the pilots in question were trained with automatics only

I would not agree with that.

If you look at the average (good) multicrew SOPs and you will generally find that during manual flight the PF has hands on the controls and the PM;

tunes the radios, sets the mode selects, arms modes, does everything with the FMS, crosschecks the navigation, fills in the PLOG and handles the communication.

Hand flying is as easy as flying on autopilot especially in a long straight climb. In fact it is easier because the other guy is doing everything at that stage and one is simply making minor adjustments to a trimmed aircraft.

So it should be easy to see that when there are frequent frequency changes, route changes in the FMS, navaids to tune cleared levels to set, headings to set, speeds to set and so forth, the single pilot doing all that can get a bit overworked while his friend sits there leaning on the controls.

Anyone not think that in such a situation a more equal workload such as when the autopilot is engaged would be safer?

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace - I am directing this specifically at those that claim to regularly hand-fly the whole flight.

[Wazzoo]

So it should be easy to see that when there are frequent frequency changes, route changes in the FMS, navaids to tune cleared levels to set, headings to set, speeds to set and so forth, the single pilot doing all that can get a bit overworked while his friend sits there leaning on the controls.

Indeed, and it can be frustrating when they other guy decides to 'hand fly' a departure out of a busy TMA without so much of a 'by the way I'll be..' or 'just to let you know I'll be..' while you're left wondering when he plans to stick the autos in and you're left doing all the above as he lazily follows the magenta cross with the odd flick of the trim switch and the A/T in thinking that he's hand flying it.

I'm all up for keeping up manual flights skills, raw data descents and approaches and thoroughly enjoy taking the automatics out and having to exercise some grey matter but I'd have to agree with Airbus Girl on the balance of things.

[cosmo kramer]

DFC:
If you look at the average (good) multicrew SOPs and you will generally find that during manual flight the PF has hands on the controls and the PM;

tunes the radios, sets the mode selects, arms modes, does everything with the FMS, crosschecks the navigation, fills in the PLOG and handles the communication.

With the exception of underlined above, you will generally find that (good) multicrew SOPs require exactly the same of the PM when below FL100.

So if the PM (be it captain or F/O) is not able to turn a few knobs (probably only the altitude, since the PF is just following a magenta LNAV path as you say), I really would not like to be in the cockpit with him or her in an emergency!

[Pugilistic Animus]

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace

No handflying, no FD following...keep your brain in your butt at all times...

[Denti]

Finally, I again ask - does anyone remember the requirements for flying in RVSM airspace - I am directing this specifically at those that claim to regularly hand-fly the whole flight.

Since that seems to be a sore point for you, why don't you simply quote the relevant text of the regulatory authority for lets say europe.

[cribble]

Denti,
I very nearly couldn't be arsed, but.....

"...(e) An automatic altitude-control system should be operative and engaged during level cruise, except when circumstances such as the need to re-trim the aircraft or turbulence require disengagement.....'

from:
EUROCONTROL Navigation Domain - Pilots

Its pretty much the same in Pacific RVSM airspace too.

[DFC]

With the exception of underlined above, you will generally find that (good) multicrew SOPs require exactly the same of the PM when below FL100.

Cosmo,

Most places where I have worked reqire that the pilot monitoring is not distracted by unnecessary paperwork below FL100 aka plog and when the autopilot is engaged the PF does the short term fms inputs eg "direct to".

That uisually leaves communications and naviad crosseheck to the pilot monitoring. Quite a big difference in busy airspace.


However, the point I was making is that the PM does not simply sit there looking out the window as was previously claimed.

---------

cribble,

Thank you.

So who were all those people who hand fly from start to finish?

[Denti]

@cribble, "should" is only a recommendation, there is no requirement as long as you can keep your level within accepted deviations. The only cited accepted deviation is max 150 feet, CPL level flying is 50 ft and therefore well within limits.

[cosmo kramer]

DFC
...and when the autopilot is engaged the PF does the short term fms inputs eg "direct to".

Average (good) multicrew SOP does not advocate both pilots to be heads down below FL100. In Average (good) multicrew SOP FMC input are prohibited by the PF below FL100.

Most places where I have worked reqire that the pilot monitoring is not distracted by unnecessary paperwork below FL100

My point exactly. And if the PF chooses to hand fly to TOC why the rush to start making paperwork immediately passing FL100??
So that's one more point to cross of your list. Crosschecking navigation, is also always the PM responsibility, no matter if AP is engaged or not.

In effect the only thing PM has to do extra when PF is hand flying, is to is to put in directs in the FMC (always his job below FL100 anyway) and set the MCP.

And to be honest it's not that big a deal for the PF to e.g. turn the heading bug while PM set a radio freq. Keyword is cockpit communication - "I have set heading 250 for you", "ohh thanks, 250 is checked".
Oh shock and horror, I know I am not allowed. Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.

It's even possible to do the raw data flying, communicate, set the heading bug and radio at the same time, while doing the navigation and paperwork all alone. I guess this is what every pilot started out doing.
Erosion of basic skills??

So the question remains WHAT is the big deal?

I agree that it is BS to hand fly in cruise. This is what the AP was invented for in the first place. So that both pilots could drink coffee and chat with the purser, go to the toilet etc.

And I also agree that there is a time and place for everything. But I already wrote that in my first post in this thread.

[DFC]

It's even possible to do the raw data flying, communicate, set the heading bug and radio at the same time, while doing the navigation and paperwork all alone. I guess this is what every pilot started out doing

Isn't that what trainers - sim and line spend far to much time knocking out of the new pilots straight out of flight school?

And to be honest it's not that big a deal for the PF to e.g. turn the heading bug while PM set a radio freq. Keyword is cockpit communication - "I have set heading 250 for you", "ohh thanks, 250 is checked".
Oh shock and horror, I know I am not allowed. Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.

I am sure that lots of people (probably the majority) are able to do this. However, it flies in the face of so many reasons for having SOPs - cross checks, closed loops etc.

Or I'll even e.g. turn to the assigned heading even if the heading bug has not yet been set, and then wait for the PM to turn the bug.

Would you climb to the cleared level and wait for the asel to be set also?

Waiting for the PF turns to heading 230 and sits there and after doing some other task the PM sets FL230 in the asel window and direct ABC in the FMS.

What you are describing is no different from the PF who because the PM is busy with a frequency change reaches over and retracts the flap. The SOP crosschecks are there for a reason.

[shortfuel]

Studi, I couldn't say it better, +1

In a highly automated aircraft, regular raw data flying should not be an option.
Unfortunately, some pilots think that manual flying is all about chasing FD bars with AP off

It's very usual to be able to remember all flight/eng parameters and trends after a raw data approach, can we say the same after a fully automated approach with late AP disconnection?

It's not in my company culture to let pilots fly manually although there's still two lines in our OM-A that permit it...after a whole paragraph emphasizing the full use of automation.

As for time consuming PNF actions, there are none: I only ask three things over a 14 min period: to set RWY track as soon as I take over with the bird, manage my speed and later set G/A altitude.

What keeps amazing me is when cleared for approach in raw data, PNF tries to arm the approach (Airbus)...it says a lot


SF, raw data advocate.

[Airbus_a321]

@Rick777
I like your comment.
The airbus is build for us, for us old, lazy pilots and not for the young hotblooded youngsters, although I understand very well that the youngsters want to do something and so like handflying very much. - But those youngsters shouldn't fly on this "lazy pilots" aircraft, but on an DC9 maybe .

I remember very well e.g. all the hands flying around in the cockpit to start and DC9 for example. And here MASTER SWITCH ON - that's it. I Love it.
You agree ?

[cosmo kramer]

DFC:
Would you climb to the cleared level and wait for the asel to be set also?

Off course not. I would set the altitude myself or wait those 10 seconds with the climb. I'm sure you are just asking this as a provocation and you would well know the answer to that question.

Waiting for the PF turns to heading 230 and sits there and after doing some other task the PM sets FL230 in the asel window and direct ABC in the FMS.

Or maybe the PF with AP engaged sets 180 in the speed window when told to turn south (done it myself a few times too, say on already on heading 220 with a speed of 220). Point being that false MCP selections can always be made, and thats why we are 2 to crosscheck it - with or without the AP engaged.

What you are describing is no different from the PF who because the PM is busy with a frequency change reaches over and retracts the flap. The SOP crosschecks are there for a reason.

Absolutely not. By communicating what I set, I give the PM the chance to correct me if I am wrong. And by starting a turn I also give him the chance to say, "hey it was 080 in a left turn not a right turn" or whatever (an error that could also be made if the PF was manipulating the HDG bug with AP engaged).
Changing a configuration with out communicating and agreement (aka the call for, and check/action by the PM) does not provide a chance for the other pilot to disagree.

It's all a matter of common sense.

[tom_ace]

The aircraft I fly day to day is by no means an airliner, but the autopilot usually is in by 1000' agl on departure and out at 1000' agl on final. How else can I read the paper?