Do airlines let you fly raw data?

[z.khalid]

As I am going to start my ME/IR training, followed by a TR on the 320 soon after that, I am just gathering as much information as I can.

Do airlines generally let you fly the whole approach as it is on the approach plate manually?
When doing a raw data approach, are FD/s, A/TH usually off?

A few of my friends tell me, it is all put in the MCDU, and usually done for you.
Sometimes you are allowed to fly raw data starting from radar vectors, but NOT the actual approach like it is on the chart itself.

Can somebody please clarify to me how it works on the bus?

[captjns]

Can't comment on the "BUS" as being a Boeing 737-800 skipper. I offer all of my F/O's to fly raw data and no autothrottle any time they want.

It instills confidence and continues the learning process of how to fly a hight performance aircraft.

IMHO it the mass evolution of "Microsoft" pilots.

Don't get me wrong... the automatics are great, especially when a bit on the knackered side, but one needs to remember who is in charge of the jet... the pilot or the computers.

[z.khalid]

captjns,

Thank you for the response.
Does this include the whole approach, including a hold if there is one, and a procedure turn?
Or just from radar vectors, to intercepting the localizer and GS to touchdown?

I apologize if this sounds like an odd question, as I have no experience on jets.

[Denti]

I have to say it is very rare to fly a full approach including course reversal procedure, usually we do get radar vector and fly from there. Of course i can request the full procedure, but that would usually mean to enter a hold and wait until there is enough time in the arrival sequence to fit me in which costs a lot of extra fuel for no real reason.

Apart from that, in my company raw data and manual flying is encouraged and boeings opinion about autothrust is mainly "manual flight -> manual thrust" on the 737.

[BOAC]

Originally Posted by Z-K

I apologize if this sounds like an odd question, as I have no experience on jets

- no need to apologise - it will depend on where you fly and what procedures are in place. 99% of the time in 'normal' ops you will be radar vectored. Occasionally you will find things like holds and reversals required in a procedure. If your Captain is willing, there is no reason why you should not fly ANY procedure which does not require automation in 'manual'. Holds are more frequently encountered, normally before an approach procedure starts as part of the arrival pattern, and these again are 'available' to you in 'manual'..From what I hear and read, it will be unlikely anyone will encourage A/T off in an Airbus. You never know.

'Requesting' the full procedure would be a foolish way to make a lot of enemies. It happened to me once inbound some place somewhere (Lanzarote, I think) where some bozo did exactly that 'for training' (in CAVOK) with 5 a/c on the way in at the same time, and I had one similar idiot fly a full procedure in Faro in CAVOK with a few inbounds as well - and that was in a twin piston.Such 'training' events are normally flown at either quiet airfields or quiet times.

[763 jock]

Don't forget that you will be flying a machine that costs a lot of money to operate. Once you have found your feet, you will probably find that you get more of a kick out of doing the job safely and efficiently rather than just the hand flying aspect.

The automatics can be used to great effect if used properly. For example, it is a lot easier to manage height and energy and enhance SA if you are not using half of your mental capacity on the basic scan and hand flying aspects.

Hand flying has its place. Just pick the right time to do it.

[captjns]

It’s unbelievable in this modern age of aviation that there are airports that do not have radar, thus requiring a full procedure to be flown be it VMC or IMC.

Our airline operates to such airports. That said there are some airports that provide a procedure turn as a means to provide a course reversal. In such cases, I still encourage a full raw data non-auto-throttle operation.

We also operate to airports where a 15 mile outbound tear drop approach is flown. Great for energy management practice too…. again without the automatics or map displays. Great practice and enjoyable too..

And yes there are a few airports with DME ARC approaches too. PND to VOR /CENTER to follow the RMIs.

Yes… one can almost convert an electric jet to a pseudo steam gauge jet.

[ImbracableCrunk]

I think it varies from airline to airline and country to country.

In the US, it is definitely promoted as a way to stay sharp on your skills.

I've also flown in Korea where manual flight pretty much required a change of diapers and raw data was tantamount to dual-engine failure. Just my tongue-in-cheek opinion.

[Intruder]

When I was an FO on the 744, one Captain with whom I flew often, encouraged me to fly raw-data approaches. Several others encouraged hand-flying as often as possible, from takeoff to TOC and from TOD to landing.

That combination served me well when I got a 747 Classic Captain seat. Though I hadn't flown a steam-gauge airplane IFR in over 20 years, the transition was relatively easy.

It's too bad that our company now interprets the FAA's AC 90-100A to mean we MUST use autopilot for all US RNAV SIDs and STARS, not "flight director and/or autopilot" as the AC actually says (the AC allows for specific company procedures and checklists in compliance with the AC). Now there are many fewer hand-flying opportunities...

[dhardesthard]

Raw data flying.

It depends on your airlines policy and whether your Captain will allow you. Most airlines dictate when you can and cannot hand fly or with or without the Flight Director. If it is a high workload sector your Captain has the right to refuse if it is going to load him up as I often did. As stated by previous replies, most times you are vectored towards the localizer or the Initial Approach Fix(IAF). If the airspace is busy you could also be denied the request for a procedural(full let down) approach. Most times you are late or trying to save fuel so a full let down is not an option.

[wwittonnless]

raw data

raw data is best avoided unless you do it all the time

[captainng]

hand flying

i encourage it from my f/os all the time as i have had fmc failures a few times in the 737 ng and some guys fall apart till they have done it hand flown raw data and raw nav as well, i try to hand fly and raw data on my first and last day of my work week and that seems to keep my skills day and night and in all winds. i think any captain scared of letting f/o s to fly raw data shouldn't really be in that seat!

helps with interviews as well!!!( who said that)

[Slasher]

My prevous and present mob do. If I'm not in RVSM territory
and the workload isn't too high I'll sometimes do the whole
trip FDs and AT and AP off and only using pure steam-driven
aids. Kids (and a couple of local checkies) are in amazement
a 320 suck-squirt can be flown like that.

Mind you with the Airboos controls being a souped-up form of
CWS I don't derive nearly as much satisfaction as I did in the
732, 734 or 747 whenever I did the same thing.

A couple of the local senior FOs are quite keen to learn the
same and request to fly a "pole job" when they're with me
with all the fancies off (although often it ends up as a semi
aerobatic exercise), but nonetheless its good to see some of
them are wanting to be real pilots and the true confidence it
instills. From them I'm told the other captains blow the ****
out of them for doing any form of raw data or hand flying and
"not respecting the automation of the 320" (whatever the hell
that nonsense means).

[RandomPerson8008]

At US based carriers, at least during my 7 year stint in an RJ and now a 1 year stint heavy international, I have almost never seen it.

I have never seen anyone do a raw data takeoff in either the E145 or 744. I have never seen anyone fly a raw data instrument approach in actual conditions, except for myself a few times in the E145. The companies' guidelines for both airplanes contained something to the effect of "the use of flight directors is strongly recommended for ALL departures and required for RNAV departures....". While raw data arrivals were allowed, very few pilots performed them because they increased the workload for both pilots. When operating into places like ORD, EWR, JFK, etc, you're already busy enough.

The only time anyone seems to turn the flight director off is if they're on a visual and they can't get the flight guidance to do what they want it to do for some reason.

It's a shame really; but to be honest on the 744 I struggle just to maintain landing currency. Needless to say, the opportunity to fly raw data does not present itself often at all, especially with the proliferation of low RNP RNAV arrival and departure procedures. Hell, the 744 doesn't even have a CDI displayed during normal ops with the ND's in map mode. At this point I don't fight the automation anymore, I just accept it as part of the job. If things really went south and we were forced to fly raw data off standby instruments it probably wouldn't be pretty, but there's no doubt we could still get the plane down safely. I'm sure the pilots of AF 447 probably thought the same thing though.

If regulatory agencies or air carriers really want their pilots to become more proficient in raw data flying they should incorporate it into their training curriculum. Steep turns and stalls, while nice for getting a feel of an aircraft, don't really have much application in real world air carrier operations. In 7 years of air carrier flying, I've NEVER done any raw data work other than steep turns and stalls as part of a simulator training cycle.

[duyen]

you will definitely fly raw data during the abnormals

[Microburst2002]

@ slasher

the airbus fbw is not a CWS.

From what I read here and what I hear on the cockpits, very few airbus pilots really know what is the nature of airbus fbw.

Boeings, fbw or not, behave conventionally in the sense that they are speed stable (they tend to maintain the angle of attack due to their static longitudinal stability even when stick free). To manoeuvre a boeing you need to exert forces in the stick, which produce g forces prpportional to the stick forces, thus changing path. This is achieved by making the elevators deflection directly related to stick deflection. Stick Force is what matters, however. You need to feel the force, even if the flight control system is hydraulically powered. The flight control system gives feedback to the pilot by means of stick forces. When you trim the stick force, the airplane will tend to maintain the angle of attack, at the expense of flight path which means you will slightly oscillate in altitude and pitch maintaining the trim speed and only need few and small inputs to maintain flight path.

Airbus fbws behave differently. They are path stable, which means that they tend to keep the trayectory even at the expense of speed and angle of attack, as if they had a different form of longitudinal stability. the airplane will oscillate in speed and even pitch maintaining flight path. In the bus, we achieve the g forces for manoeuvring by deflecting the stick. g force is proportional to stick deflection, not to stick force. The feedbackis not given to the pilot, but to computers. You can't really speak of stick-free in an A320. they are never stickfree. Stick free means "tend to maintain trayectory". Thereore forces in the stick are not necessary. Trim is not necessary at all. There is a THS, and there is "autotrim", but in fact the A320 is a trimless airplane. In the THS jam or dual hydraulic blue remaining ALTN LAW keeps autotrim with elevators alone.

All airplanes are manoeuvred in by inducing g forces. You want the nose up, you pull the stick. You want the nose down: you push the stick. When you achieve the desired flight path we want the airplane to be stable and tend to maintain it. You will only need a few smalls input to maintain the flight path precisely. Forces in boeings, deflections in airbuses.

In the fbws we don't have to trim. That is all the difference. No resemblance to a CWS nor an autopilot.

When pilots say that to "really fly" the A320 you have to disconnect computers to bring the DIRECT LAW... I feel sick because I know they don't know very much about flight controls and flight at all... No airplane could be certified that had a fbw direct law system with no stick forces.

[sheppey]

Once you have found your feet, you will probably find that you get more of a kick out of doing the job safely and efficiently rather than just the hand flying aspect.

An extraordinary statement indeed. I am sure most keen and enthusiastic pilots gain more satisfaction from the skills required to hand fly a raw data ILS in a crosswind and nail it - rather than watching with great admiration the automatic pilot doing the same job. Both approaches should do the job safely and efficiently but the "kick out of doing the job" is certainly not the same.

[Slasher]

I said "a souped-up version of CWS" for the benefit of those not
Airboos-rated, without having to spend reams of paragraphs on
explaining how its flight controls work.

[TheChitterneFlyer]

As previous posters have said... there's a time and a place for hand flying and that a busy environment or bad weather isn't either of them.

[763 jock]

Sheppey.

I cannot understand why you think my statement is "extraordinary". You also fail to quote my statement regarding the right time and place. I am not against hand flying or raw data, but in my 20+ years of airline ops, I can tell you that most people use the kit that is available to them. That is why Boeing and Airbus put it there in the first place.

Are you seriously suggesting that you would hand fly a night approach to CAT 1 limits in a 30 knot crosswind when you have an autopilot or three available?