ILS & Autothrottle
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yawn.
What an utterly, utterly cliched, blinkered, patronising and offensive view of others. Has it not occurred to you that there are a significant number of pilots out there who have perfectly adequate basic raw flying skills bred from varied backgrounds? However, rather than sit in an ivory tower of self-admiration of their basic handling skills, these systems are switched on, manipulated and understood by many more pilots than you give credit for. You may consider this a "dull" approach to flying, but personally I don't haul fare paying passengers around for an opportunity to show off how fantastic my basic poling skills are.
I hold a professional colleague in just as much high regard as a pilot for knowing the do's and don'ts of his company Part A book as I do for his good standard of automatic OR manual flying. We work in a rule based industry. I'd rather go to work with a compliant, average Joe pilot than a maverick out for the day to show off (without my invitation) how he can cope without automatic assistance. Leave that for the recurrent training environment.
What an utterly, utterly cliched, blinkered, patronising and offensive view of others. Has it not occurred to you that there are a significant number of pilots out there who have perfectly adequate basic raw flying skills bred from varied backgrounds? However, rather than sit in an ivory tower of self-admiration of their basic handling skills, these systems are switched on, manipulated and understood by many more pilots than you give credit for. You may consider this a "dull" approach to flying, but personally I don't haul fare paying passengers around for an opportunity to show off how fantastic my basic poling skills are.
I hold a professional colleague in just as much high regard as a pilot for knowing the do's and don'ts of his company Part A book as I do for his good standard of automatic OR manual flying. We work in a rule based industry. I'd rather go to work with a compliant, average Joe pilot than a maverick out for the day to show off (without my invitation) how he can cope without automatic assistance. Leave that for the recurrent training environment.
There is a definite safety case for this. How could one possibly argue that complete disconnection of the system is safer? Or is it the preference of care-free pilots to show off their "straight arm" technique on a Go Around as they light a Hamlet cigar?
Rubbishing a manufacturer's recommended procedure is a risky legal procedure. Interestingly, few operators who take it upon themselves to change the manufacturer's procedure, have the courage of their convictions to contact Boeing with the results of their measured trials to prove the manufacturer's test pilot recommendations were wrong. In any case, few operators are going to employ the Human Factors experts and associated qualified test flying personnel that would be required to challenge the manufacture's own experts.
The reasons why, for instance, Boeing (737 series) recommend manual throttle use (autothrottle disengaged altogether) with certain areas of manual flight, may not necessarily be explained in full detail in the FCOM or FCTM. It would triple the size of some manuals if detailed reasons were given for and against certain procedures.
On the other hand, it also explains why some operators are perfectly happy to disregard a manufacturer's recommended procedure and change it to suit the whims of whoever calls the shots in the airline. And that is because they can only hazard a guess at why the manufacturer recommends a certain procedure without amplifying the reason.
If the operator or pilot decides to disregard the manufacturer's recommendation it is on his own head. But if something should go wrong then the legal eagles are waiting to pounce.
The other thing to remember, is that automation dependancy invariably affects those pilots who lack the training or pure flying ability to switch seamlessly from automatics to manual flight. Recent loss of control in IMC accidents attest to that. With more and more cadet pilots going into the right hand seat and trained primarily as autopilot monitors rather than as airmen, one is left with the perception that a perfectly normal manual go-around with no FD or autothrottle, turns into a non-normal event that becomes quite frightening to someone unused to hand flying.
It shouldn't be like that of course, but it happens. The crutch of the automatic go-around even on a visual approach is relied upon as a life saver by some. Bloody sad - but true. I doubt if that will ever change.
The high-lighted original quote, re straight arm go-arounds, would suggest the author has had an unfortunate experience with a normal manually flown go-around. More simulator training needed, methinks
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More simulator training needed, methinks
So, expect the same sort of automation-induced accidents/incidents...perhaps even more.
The only thing that is likely to change this unfortunate picture is for the concerned regulatory authority to say....enough is enough, and lay down the law....IE: train to proficiency.
Quoted from my company Operations Manual:
This last sentence leads to a very nice mix of flying departures and approaches in all these levels of automation and keeps us current. Depending on the weather/traffic situation most of flightcrew adapt easily to other levels of automation. Altough this is the first company that I work for, I like it this way.
No captain looks odd at me when I ask if he is OK if I fly a raw data departure or approach from 10.000ft in CAVOK weather. From some I hear that I can be surprised when I would also do this in other (especially british) companies.
Policy on the use of autopilot, autothrottle, FD
Levels of automation
The following levels of automation are defined:
- first level: no automation
- second level: use of flight director while hand flying
- third level: use of autopilot and auto throttle in its basic modes (alt. hold, lvl change, vertical speed, hdg sel., ...)
- fourth level: use of autopilot and auto throttle in flight management modes (LNAV/VNAV)
Flight crew must remain competent to use all levels of automation.
Levels of automation
The following levels of automation are defined:
- first level: no automation
- second level: use of flight director while hand flying
- third level: use of autopilot and auto throttle in its basic modes (alt. hold, lvl change, vertical speed, hdg sel., ...)
- fourth level: use of autopilot and auto throttle in flight management modes (LNAV/VNAV)
Flight crew must remain competent to use all levels of automation.
No captain looks odd at me when I ask if he is OK if I fly a raw data departure or approach from 10.000ft in CAVOK weather. From some I hear that I can be surprised when I would also do this in other (especially british) companies.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Preventing our manual flying skills from diminishing is important as this Flight Safety Foundation pdf points out. I would have agreed with 411A last year - but our (British) company is now spending a couple of hours sim time on this one.
Many arguments have been made both for and against use of autothrottle (A’T) in manual flight. In most cases tipping point is aircraft dependent and thus the manufacturer’s advice should be heeded.
Without such advice there are some general issues which IMHO point towards not using autothrottle.
Some installations tend to destabilise the aircraft in pitch (often overcome with experience, but beware unfamiliar conditions). Some older aircraft have a weak or no autopilot–A’T interface. IIRC older 737’s have no control mode interconnect, but the 1011 (for its age) has a good interface, i.e. height control was a function of combined pitch and speed input and not pitch then speed.
More recently auto-flight systems are optimised for combined use, thus manual flight with A’T must coordinate control requirements – akin to normal flight control. However, with excessive use of A’T and autopilot, this may be the only baseline for the pilot’s experience. Thus attempting to mimic the autopilot during manual flight might not lower workload or give consistent performance due to the differences between the autos and the human in the way they use sensors and inputs, e.g. use of rad alt, gain change with speed / configuration, and trim rate.
Other problems arise due to complacency in not scanning speed or mode change, e.g. a low approach aiming for a ‘short’ touchdown (A’T use to control speed accurately). The approach may drift slightly low or encounter a rising ground late in the approach, either triggering the A’T to retard. If unnoticed, and with correcting nose up pitch further reducing speed, the aircraft could be at risk to a nose-high, slow speed, and possibly hard arrival, even before the runway.
IMHO, use of autothrottle in manual flight is an indication of a more serious problem that pilots may ‘loose’ the ability to fly ‘stick and throttle’. This is not so much the physical skills which are taught from basic flying training, but an individual’s confidence in the ability to fly manually in all conditions; note the calls for more manual flight, but only in good conditions. This apparent lack of confidence could spread to the majority of flying; always use the auto-pilot. Also to other systems, leading to automation dependency – lack of confidence in one’s ability to cross check with simple calculations, rules of thumb, etc; always believe the computer – part of the SOP culture?
The industry might have to choose between using experienced pilots to ‘fly’ aircraft (the old view) and pilots who monitor technology and automation (a future view).
There are pitfalls and advantages in both extremes. A concern is that the future could be imposed on pilots with aircraft design, yet most pilots still want to choose.
I fear that any future choice may only be in the title of the job description, not a choice of how or when to use the A’T.
Without such advice there are some general issues which IMHO point towards not using autothrottle.
Some installations tend to destabilise the aircraft in pitch (often overcome with experience, but beware unfamiliar conditions). Some older aircraft have a weak or no autopilot–A’T interface. IIRC older 737’s have no control mode interconnect, but the 1011 (for its age) has a good interface, i.e. height control was a function of combined pitch and speed input and not pitch then speed.
More recently auto-flight systems are optimised for combined use, thus manual flight with A’T must coordinate control requirements – akin to normal flight control. However, with excessive use of A’T and autopilot, this may be the only baseline for the pilot’s experience. Thus attempting to mimic the autopilot during manual flight might not lower workload or give consistent performance due to the differences between the autos and the human in the way they use sensors and inputs, e.g. use of rad alt, gain change with speed / configuration, and trim rate.
Other problems arise due to complacency in not scanning speed or mode change, e.g. a low approach aiming for a ‘short’ touchdown (A’T use to control speed accurately). The approach may drift slightly low or encounter a rising ground late in the approach, either triggering the A’T to retard. If unnoticed, and with correcting nose up pitch further reducing speed, the aircraft could be at risk to a nose-high, slow speed, and possibly hard arrival, even before the runway.
IMHO, use of autothrottle in manual flight is an indication of a more serious problem that pilots may ‘loose’ the ability to fly ‘stick and throttle’. This is not so much the physical skills which are taught from basic flying training, but an individual’s confidence in the ability to fly manually in all conditions; note the calls for more manual flight, but only in good conditions. This apparent lack of confidence could spread to the majority of flying; always use the auto-pilot. Also to other systems, leading to automation dependency – lack of confidence in one’s ability to cross check with simple calculations, rules of thumb, etc; always believe the computer – part of the SOP culture?
The industry might have to choose between using experienced pilots to ‘fly’ aircraft (the old view) and pilots who monitor technology and automation (a future view).
There are pitfalls and advantages in both extremes. A concern is that the future could be imposed on pilots with aircraft design, yet most pilots still want to choose.
I fear that any future choice may only be in the title of the job description, not a choice of how or when to use the A’T.
Good points, safety pee. I had about 10,000 hours before I touched an auto throttle plane, the old habits of having a power setting in mind every time I moved the throttles are deeply embedded. I just changed to a second type which doesn't have A/T, first leg, it was all about learning the power settings for different configs and speeds. Soon, I had a fuelflow setting for most situations. How many trained on autothrust have a power setting and throttle position in mind whenever in auto throttle mode?
GF
GF
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centaurus
I've never had any incident or problem with manual throttle go-arounds, using the straight arm thrust setting technique. My argument for leaving the autothrottle armed for go-around is one based on enhanced capacity for the pilot, not that the pilot is assumed to be incapable of setting thrust manually.
I find your assumption that I require further simulator training in these methods both presumptious and offensive. It has always been my preferred operating method to give each of my colleagues the benefit of the doubt in their hand flying skills; sadly it would seem many contributors to this thread hold an extreme prejudice that anyone who maximises automation must have crap manual skills.
I've never had any incident or problem with manual throttle go-arounds, using the straight arm thrust setting technique. My argument for leaving the autothrottle armed for go-around is one based on enhanced capacity for the pilot, not that the pilot is assumed to be incapable of setting thrust manually.
I find your assumption that I require further simulator training in these methods both presumptious and offensive. It has always been my preferred operating method to give each of my colleagues the benefit of the doubt in their hand flying skills; sadly it would seem many contributors to this thread hold an extreme prejudice that anyone who maximises automation must have crap manual skills.
