Once a pilot - now a computer's sidekick
Will there be crashes as a result; you bet, but there will be a lot less than if you allowed these low hour pilots to hand fly jet aircraft around.
The whole point is that we must have the skills to immediately jump on the controls and continue to fly (or be able to monitor the automatics properly) when something goes terribly wrong such as AF447. The Turkish 737 was another example of automation dependency. I'll bet every one of those guys could to do a lovely 25° turn up and down in the canned Sim exercise. But they still got killed because they either didn't notice or could not work out WTF was going on. That's because they weren't current or in the mindset of actually flying the aeroplane. Handflying skill does improve your monitoring of the automatics and allows you to jump in and save the aeroplane when the AP spits the dummy.
What's next; autopilot and ATS becoming No-Go items?
Let's get out of this mindset of "experience is going down, so let's mandate more use of the automatics". Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.
Ah yes Bloggs
The problem is that you are coming at it from a pilots point of view, which is 'no accident is acceptable'. Unfortunately the bean counters control the resources, so they have a formula that comes up with a number that equates to acceptable number of hull losses. There in lies the problem.
The bean counters are happy to accept a certain number of crashes and we aren't, so we have to make do with what we are given to train our pilots.
In our operation we have such limited opportunity to actually hand fly that all currency items are dealt with in the simulator. As a result of having to complete all the mandatory regulatory requirements there is precious little time left to devote to maintaining basic flying skills. Ideal? No. Reality? Yes.
That is naive in the extreme. Training and recurrent proficiency are a cost tot he airline and affect somebody's KPI's. Until the accident rate climbs to a level that the bean counters find unacceptable, they won't throw one extra dollar at it.
The problem is that you are coming at it from a pilots point of view, which is 'no accident is acceptable'. Unfortunately the bean counters control the resources, so they have a formula that comes up with a number that equates to acceptable number of hull losses. There in lies the problem.
The bean counters are happy to accept a certain number of crashes and we aren't, so we have to make do with what we are given to train our pilots.
In our operation we have such limited opportunity to actually hand fly that all currency items are dealt with in the simulator. As a result of having to complete all the mandatory regulatory requirements there is precious little time left to devote to maintaining basic flying skills. Ideal? No. Reality? Yes.
Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.
Gone are the days of immediately reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, or at least they should be gone.
No pilot likes to make a fool of himself in front of the other crew member. And the reason why many pilots espouse staying with automatics through thick and thin is because they know they have become rusty, and thus incapable of hand flying competence. They would never admit it but I suspect they are frightened of losing face in front of the other pilot. Loss of face is not just an Asian trait. It applies equally to all captains and first officers.
Centaurus
I think you have pretty much hit the nail on the head, however i would contend that it is actually a higher workload to hand fly due to the nature of automated flight decks.
When flying with the autopilot engaged the PF can make mode changes as required.
When hand flying all mode changes have to be articulated to the PM. Whilst that may sound simple, it isn't always.
Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.
Any in flight occurence that requires an autopilot disconnect is most likely going to pop up on the FDR. When/if it does the Captain will be sent a please explain. If he has continued flight without appropriate flight director guidance it is unlikely that he is going to be patted on the back and have his exemplary flying skill praised. More likely he is going to be sent to the sim for some more training on how to manage the automatics.
It is a downward spiral that's for sure.
When flying with the autopilot engaged the PF can make mode changes as required.
When hand flying all mode changes have to be articulated to the PM. Whilst that may sound simple, it isn't always.
Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.
Any in flight occurence that requires an autopilot disconnect is most likely going to pop up on the FDR. When/if it does the Captain will be sent a please explain. If he has continued flight without appropriate flight director guidance it is unlikely that he is going to be patted on the back and have his exemplary flying skill praised. More likely he is going to be sent to the sim for some more training on how to manage the automatics.
It is a downward spiral that's for sure.
Centaurus
The ability to confidently take out misbehaving or limiting automatics, put the aircraft where it needs to be, re-instate automatics if need be, is a ancillary concern in this debate in relation to the value of hand flying proficiency.
If the Airbus safety record with mode confusion and lack of the basics is not a concern, the fact that some Airbus models have multiple Operational Engineering Bulletins stating failures of automation to deliver accurate Flight Director in critical phases should be.
I feel robbed of my hand flying proficiency by the industry and regulator.
The ability to confidently take out misbehaving or limiting automatics, put the aircraft where it needs to be, re-instate automatics if need be, is a ancillary concern in this debate in relation to the value of hand flying proficiency.
If the Airbus safety record with mode confusion and lack of the basics is not a concern, the fact that some Airbus models have multiple Operational Engineering Bulletins stating failures of automation to deliver accurate Flight Director in critical phases should be.
I feel robbed of my hand flying proficiency by the industry and regulator.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cruel joke?
Again, the days of disconnecting and pointing at the runway are gone. At the very least you have to call for the appropriate mode so that you have flight director guidance.
If you can't quote some basic attitudes and approximate power for, a lap of the circuit, cruise, descent, base-turn and final, you do not belong in the flightdeck of a jet.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OTE]
Let's get out of this mindset of "experience is going down, so let's mandate more use of the automatics". Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.
Let's get out of this mindset of "experience is going down, so let's mandate more use of the automatics". Let's increase training and recurrent proficiency to achieve and maintain the skill that will ultimately save our and the pax's lives.
The crew had created extra workload by initially uploading and briefing the wrong approach procedure, and then when they realised the error after they left the holding pattern, they again increased their workload by reprogramming the FMC for the correct approach.
Isn't this the the old story all over again? Unnecessary button pushing when the priority should have been on flying the aircraft? Then they got a flap overspeed resulting in more distraction and then forgot to do the landing checklist .
The autobrakes were selected earlier but after touchdown the speed brakes did not deploy and the reversers were not actuated. So the automatic brakes did not actuate. Still the penny had not dropped until the CVR heard "I got no brakes, man".
The captain then applied full manual braking and reverse thrust was engaged with 1,500 ft of runway remaining - an action which automatically deployed the speed brakes. The aircraft left the runway and rolled 200 ft into grass. None of the 139 passengers and crew members were injured in the 26 April 2011 incident.
What is the solution to this type of crass bad airmanship? Because in all probability it is not just an isolated incident. Some would recommend more still automation. Others may see it differently.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Australia, maybe
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AIRBUS Golden Rule 6 (250kb)
Rule 7
my bolding
When things don’t go as expected, Take over If the aircraft does not follow the desired vertical flight path / lateral flight path or the selected targets, and time does not permit analyzing and solving the observed behavior, revert without delay from:
• FMS guidance to selected guidance;
or from,
• Selected guidance to hand flying.
• FMS guidance to selected guidance;
or from,
• Selected guidance to hand flying.
Use the correct level of automation for the task On highly automated and integrated aircraft, several levels of automation are available to perform a given task:
• FMS modes and guidance; or,
• Selected modes and guidance.
The correct level of automation depends on:
• The task to be performed:
− short-term (tactical) task; or,
− long-term (strategic) task;
• The flight phase:
− departure, enroute, terminal area or approach-and-landing; and,
• The time available:
− normal selection or entry; or,
− last-minute change.
The correct level of automation often is the one the pilot feels the most comfortable with, depending on his/her knowledge and experience of the aircraft and systems, skills and confidence.
Reversion to hand-flying and manual thrust-control may be the "correct level of automation", for the prevailing conditions.
• FMS modes and guidance; or,
• Selected modes and guidance.
The correct level of automation depends on:
• The task to be performed:
− short-term (tactical) task; or,
− long-term (strategic) task;
• The flight phase:
− departure, enroute, terminal area or approach-and-landing; and,
• The time available:
− normal selection or entry; or,
− last-minute change.
The correct level of automation often is the one the pilot feels the most comfortable with, depending on his/her knowledge and experience of the aircraft and systems, skills and confidence.
Reversion to hand-flying and manual thrust-control may be the "correct level of automation", for the prevailing conditions.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And we come back to the time honored way every time. Work with what you have, forget about what you have lost, and if you have had the basics hammered into your head from day one of your flying career, chances are you will get the bus on the ground. In my career, I had loss of nose wheel HBA/MEL, lost a donk on TO full pax, full fuel, and a freckin roman candle coming out of the left donk out of CBR, and God only knows how many other little set backs that buggered up my day, and each time was blessed with a competent F/O and flighty, a competent experienced flight deck, that handled both possible disasters, with training and experience. All former bush pilots, GA pilots, the training showed. I might add these experienced hero's made their way to the nearest pub, after all the stress, and got totally pissed, but hey we deserved it!
Grandpa Aerotart
virginexcess is spot on - I am sad to say.
Capn Bloggs while your operation around the western GAFA provides ample opportunity to fly manually and maintain skills that is not true of MOST jet operations worldwide. For instance where are the opportunities for the crews operating between HKG and LHR or SIN and FRA or DXB and LA or NY and Paris?
I came to believe just after I started to fly for my first airline (after nearly 7000hrs in GA) that if you don't 'learn to fly' (have well ingrained basic skills) BEFORE you get in an airline jet you NEVER will - and that first airline jet for me was an F28 where we still DID hand fly a lot.
I have seen no evidence in the 17 odd years since that suggests that is, on balance, not the case.
At recent sim recurrent we were told in the brief that the grading emphasis in our airline had shifted from manual skills to NOTECHS - Non Technical Skills.
For those unschooled in NOTECHS there are 4 categories;
* Co-operation
* Leadership and Managerial Skills
* Situational Awareness
* Decision Making
Within each category there are 'elements' such as, with SA, 'awareness of aircraft systems/external environment/time'
All very good and clever - BUT,
NOTECHS assumes good communication skills (in English) and good basic technical skills are a given - which are two pretty unrealistic assumptions to make. Even if they're at a high level in a given airline NOW if you remove the emphasis eventually they won't be - its just human nature.
Less and less do airline management pilots have a background in GA/MIL these days and those that don't TRULY don't see much value in the hand flying skill set in modern aircraft like the 777 - which is too clever by half IMO. Too, in many airlines (especially 3rd world airlines), if a high standard of manual skills WAS required their cadetship schemes would be decimated and they would have to bid on the open market for that % of pilots who do have good skills and/or put very significant resources into training.
Can't have that - it would cost us a fortune - plus we already spend a fortune on Airbus and Boeing so they can give us idiot proof aeroplanes
So we have a sort of downwards conflict spiral between airline CEO/beancounters - airline management pilots - aircraft manufacturers.
Array those 3 groups around a circle.
Airline CEOs/etc (except QF apparently) want more pax which means more aircraft which means more crews.
Management pilots are told X new aircraft are arriving in Y time frame - crew them! If they want to stay in management they do.
A/B want idiots to stop crashing their product which causes them much grief.
When A/B design a new idiot proof aeroplane that allows the airlines to go searching for a better class of idiot...and so the conflict spiral continues.
In the middle of the circle is this
which is/should be the internationally recognised symbol of regulatory agencies
The answer of better/higher standards is politically and practically impossible worldwide - so we will see cleverer/more idiot proof aeroplanes chasing after a better class of idiot until pilotless aircraft become a reality - then we will see LOTS of crashes/people killed when its found (shock horror ) that as flawed as a well trained, highly skilled human is - he/she is a damn site better than a computer incapable of feeling fear talking to a pimply faced computer geek in a trailer 8000nm away over a data link designed and produced by the lowest cost bidder.
Its all just human nature
Capn Bloggs while your operation around the western GAFA provides ample opportunity to fly manually and maintain skills that is not true of MOST jet operations worldwide. For instance where are the opportunities for the crews operating between HKG and LHR or SIN and FRA or DXB and LA or NY and Paris?
I came to believe just after I started to fly for my first airline (after nearly 7000hrs in GA) that if you don't 'learn to fly' (have well ingrained basic skills) BEFORE you get in an airline jet you NEVER will - and that first airline jet for me was an F28 where we still DID hand fly a lot.
I have seen no evidence in the 17 odd years since that suggests that is, on balance, not the case.
At recent sim recurrent we were told in the brief that the grading emphasis in our airline had shifted from manual skills to NOTECHS - Non Technical Skills.
For those unschooled in NOTECHS there are 4 categories;
* Co-operation
* Leadership and Managerial Skills
* Situational Awareness
* Decision Making
Within each category there are 'elements' such as, with SA, 'awareness of aircraft systems/external environment/time'
All very good and clever - BUT,
NOTECHS assumes good communication skills (in English) and good basic technical skills are a given - which are two pretty unrealistic assumptions to make. Even if they're at a high level in a given airline NOW if you remove the emphasis eventually they won't be - its just human nature.
Less and less do airline management pilots have a background in GA/MIL these days and those that don't TRULY don't see much value in the hand flying skill set in modern aircraft like the 777 - which is too clever by half IMO. Too, in many airlines (especially 3rd world airlines), if a high standard of manual skills WAS required their cadetship schemes would be decimated and they would have to bid on the open market for that % of pilots who do have good skills and/or put very significant resources into training.
Can't have that - it would cost us a fortune - plus we already spend a fortune on Airbus and Boeing so they can give us idiot proof aeroplanes
So we have a sort of downwards conflict spiral between airline CEO/beancounters - airline management pilots - aircraft manufacturers.
Array those 3 groups around a circle.
Airline CEOs/etc (except QF apparently) want more pax which means more aircraft which means more crews.
Management pilots are told X new aircraft are arriving in Y time frame - crew them! If they want to stay in management they do.
A/B want idiots to stop crashing their product which causes them much grief.
When A/B design a new idiot proof aeroplane that allows the airlines to go searching for a better class of idiot...and so the conflict spiral continues.
In the middle of the circle is this
which is/should be the internationally recognised symbol of regulatory agenciesThe answer of better/higher standards is politically and practically impossible worldwide - so we will see cleverer/more idiot proof aeroplanes chasing after a better class of idiot until pilotless aircraft become a reality - then we will see LOTS of crashes/people killed when its found (shock horror
) that as flawed as a well trained, highly skilled human is - he/she is a damn site better than a computer incapable of feeling fear talking to a pimply faced computer geek in a trailer 8000nm away over a data link designed and produced by the lowest cost bidder.Its all just human nature
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 86
Posts: 1,345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And today the skipper of the A380 confirmed what most have said. Good training in the early days be it service or self taught GA, work with what you have got, worry not with what you have lost. Fly the Aircraft NBR 1. Go back to the very basics if need be that your flying instructor instilled in your head. It is still only a aeroplane remember that, and can be flown without all the bells and whistles ( though not as easy) AND as Richard stated today in the Australian weekend Magazine, never totally trust the bastards, never. I have never forgotten meeting Capt Lester Brain, and the great man saying to me, Son, don't be surprised if they don't take off, be surprised that they do. I hope there are young pilots reading this thread, and I hope they realise that they need to keep honing their flying skills, I suggest you spend a bit of money, hire a lighty and reconnect to just that, it will be worth every cent.
There is a helluva difference between an AVIATOR (remember that old term) and a pilot (who now days is a systems operator).
Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times that aviator's are a dying breed.
I could mention a good book, "Fate Is The Hunter", which summed up a few examples of an aviator's thinking.
'Nuff said...I will reminisce my tail-dragger days with a big smile.
ps..great thread.
Unfortunately, it is a sign of the times that aviator's are a dying breed.
I could mention a good book, "Fate Is The Hunter", which summed up a few examples of an aviator's thinking.
'Nuff said...I will reminisce my tail-dragger days with a big smile.
ps..great thread.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Examples of when you have lost the enthusiasm that we all had when we began to learn to fly.
On descent on a lovely day into Melbourne winds L&V.
"Do you mind if I switch off the flight director and hand fly for a bit"?
"Whatever for? - you are only making it hard for yourself and load me up as well"
Jeez Jack - its CAVOK and I've got a sim check coming up -I need the practice.
No son - leave the autopilot in. It's safer that way.
Well can I switch to HSI mode on my side?
Whatever for - are you mad or something? - leave it on MAP for better situational awareness, son.
Glum silence - then "Mind if I turn off the autobrake for my landing?"
"Whatever for?" Are you trying to bust every SOP?
No captain, I'm not. And autobrakes for every landing is not SOP, anyway. All I want to do is keep my hand in on manual flying like I did in GA and with 10,000 ft of runway I don't need the autobrake, anyway.
Alright son, I'll go you halves - you can turn off the autopilot on short final and I'll have the autobrake on three. Leave the flight director on in case of a go-around though.
"Three for Christ's sake- WTF do you want autobrake three for - the brakes will get hot" Anyway we don't need the flight director for a go-around".
"In my aircraft son, you use the flight director at all times and as far as hot brakes - well it never happens with autobrakes and anyway brakes are built to take heat didn'tcha know that. Now relax son, and watch your language. Just you do what I tell you and leave the flight director, the autopilot, the autothrottle, the autobrake, and the autospeed brakes to do their jobs and everything will be fine when you fly with me.
"But but but!"
"Don't effing argue with me son. Just fly the bloody aircraft.
"Yes captain Sir - that was what I was trying to do, but you won't let me.....
On descent on a lovely day into Melbourne winds L&V.
"Do you mind if I switch off the flight director and hand fly for a bit"?
"Whatever for? - you are only making it hard for yourself and load me up as well"
Jeez Jack - its CAVOK and I've got a sim check coming up -I need the practice.
No son - leave the autopilot in. It's safer that way.
Well can I switch to HSI mode on my side?
Whatever for - are you mad or something? - leave it on MAP for better situational awareness, son.
Glum silence - then "Mind if I turn off the autobrake for my landing?"
"Whatever for?" Are you trying to bust every SOP?
No captain, I'm not. And autobrakes for every landing is not SOP, anyway. All I want to do is keep my hand in on manual flying like I did in GA and with 10,000 ft of runway I don't need the autobrake, anyway.
Alright son, I'll go you halves - you can turn off the autopilot on short final and I'll have the autobrake on three. Leave the flight director on in case of a go-around though.
"Three for Christ's sake- WTF do you want autobrake three for - the brakes will get hot" Anyway we don't need the flight director for a go-around".
"In my aircraft son, you use the flight director at all times and as far as hot brakes - well it never happens with autobrakes and anyway brakes are built to take heat didn'tcha know that. Now relax son, and watch your language. Just you do what I tell you and leave the flight director, the autopilot, the autothrottle, the autobrake, and the autospeed brakes to do their jobs and everything will be fine when you fly with me.
"But but but!"
"Don't effing argue with me son. Just fly the bloody aircraft.
"Yes captain Sir - that was what I was trying to do, but you won't let me.....
For instance where are the opportunities for the crews operating between HKG and LHR or SIN and FRA or DXB and LA or NY and Paris?
As for the rest of your post, Chimbu, I think most of us know that. Some of us are saying let's make the effort. By at least raising the issue somebody's conscience might be pricked. A couple of prangs might also shake someone into reality.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Mydadsbag
Posts: 1,113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Storm in a teacup.
In my humble 15 years of multi-crew flying, not once have I heard a discouraging word when someone wanted to practice "hand-flying".
If anything, I have witnessed the total opposite.
"Nah mate, I don't build FMC circuits, I just turn all that
off and fly it like a man."
When I hear those words, I sit up in my seat and review unusual attitude recovery in my mind! Have witnessed plenty of white knuckled, shiny lever, wrestling matches and usually at the end of a big day!
Why make it tough?
Pick your fights, good weather, light traffic, FO with ample brainspace..... click click.
In my humble 15 years of multi-crew flying, not once have I heard a discouraging word when someone wanted to practice "hand-flying".
If anything, I have witnessed the total opposite.
"Nah mate, I don't build FMC circuits, I just turn all that
off and fly it like a man."When I hear those words, I sit up in my seat and review unusual attitude recovery in my mind! Have witnessed plenty of white knuckled, shiny lever, wrestling matches and usually at the end of a big day!
Why make it tough?
Pick your fights, good weather, light traffic, FO with ample brainspace..... click click.
That belief is what scares the hell out of me. The reason why pilots should be perfectly confident of reverting to hand flying when the automatics are not behaving as expected, is that it is more efficient and far quicker to go Click Click and take immediate control than furiously going heads down poking buttons.
There's nothing wrong with disconnecting and doing some pilot **** but it shouldn't be the first response when finding yourself in a "what's it doing now" moment.