Once a pilot - now a computer's sidekick
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Qatar
Age: 68
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
Major Bob Hollands at the controls....
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
..dangerous as airline pilots. Especially if they are from non-Western air forces
Originally Posted by Gnadenburg
some are very gifted and stand-outs
Originally Posted by flyboy410
Fighter pilots do have a tendency to 'drive' planes more than flying them
Originally Posted by flyboy410
There's a stark weight and maneuverability difference between a fighter and an airliner!
Originally Posted by flyboy410
there are some who take it by hand up ... until they're in a stable climb. Usually, the latter are the better pilots qualitatively
Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima. Now it seems those people are comforting themselves by talking about more miserable than themselves...
Last edited by Reinhardt; 26th Jul 2012 at 09:26.
Here we go again......
I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly.
Wasn't that what this thread was about...?
Every time we meet between ex-fighter pilots, disregarding nationalities, we always agree about the poor level of handling skills and lack of aerodynamic background so common with the "pure civilian" pilots, who paid for their training and have been therefore instructed a minima...
Wasn't that what this thread was about...?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a hybrid between hand flying and automation
In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars.
This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.
Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.
WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.
And we would have so much more fun!
This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.
Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.
WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.
And we would have so much more fun!
Last edited by Microburst2002; 26th Jul 2012 at 15:07.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent and well written ! I was discussing this accident with my brother who is a Delta Captain flying the A-330 in an attempt to understand why the crew did not revert to flying AOA. I have flown corporate Gulfstream models for the past 35 years which come standard with "normalized" AOA presentation and was shocked to learn that Airbus does not provide AOA status to the crew.
The Gulfstream-550 incorporates a procedure in the QRH that addresses the exact scenario faced by the AF crew by pitching to an AOA range (percent of lift used) of 0.30 to 0.50 for clean configuration to fly straight and level. We also have the advantage of HUD providing a zero pitch line which can be aligned with the FD FPA symbol.
Is there a logical rationale for not having AOA information available in all swept wing aircraft?
The Gulfstream-550 incorporates a procedure in the QRH that addresses the exact scenario faced by the AF crew by pitching to an AOA range (percent of lift used) of 0.30 to 0.50 for clean configuration to fly straight and level. We also have the advantage of HUD providing a zero pitch line which can be aligned with the FD FPA symbol.
Is there a logical rationale for not having AOA information available in all swept wing aircraft?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: London
Age: 59
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kudos to Chimbu and VirginExcess - they have nailed it.
The reality is that the problem is commercial problem as much as a technical problem. Automation has been a commercial necessity in the IT and Utility (Power, gas, electricity) industries for decadeds. It is now a commercial necessity in aviation. The way forward is to accept the fact that pilots are now dependent on automation as their employers can no longer afford to keep the hand flying skills current.
As such, any reduction in automation due to unreliable airspeed or any other criterion should have a mandated gradual reduction in automation based on the computer's best estimates from the remaining reliable telemetry. What is no longer acceptable is the sudden "I give up" programming to hand over full manual control to pilots in an instant, as what happened with AF447.
It is no longer economical to train pilots to hand fly in such situations - the automation response must be gradual and very unabiguous to enable pilots to adjust to a fully automatic to semi-automatic flying mode. Just giving up and expecting hand flying skills is no longer on the cards.
The reality is that the problem is commercial problem as much as a technical problem. Automation has been a commercial necessity in the IT and Utility (Power, gas, electricity) industries for decadeds. It is now a commercial necessity in aviation. The way forward is to accept the fact that pilots are now dependent on automation as their employers can no longer afford to keep the hand flying skills current.
As such, any reduction in automation due to unreliable airspeed or any other criterion should have a mandated gradual reduction in automation based on the computer's best estimates from the remaining reliable telemetry. What is no longer acceptable is the sudden "I give up" programming to hand over full manual control to pilots in an instant, as what happened with AF447.
It is no longer economical to train pilots to hand fly in such situations - the automation response must be gradual and very unabiguous to enable pilots to adjust to a fully automatic to semi-automatic flying mode. Just giving up and expecting hand flying skills is no longer on the cards.
JB
I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly.
Wasn't that what this thread was about...?
Yes indeed; have often quoted my old favorite-"the older I get, the better I was".
Have also argued many times on this forum, that manual flying todays airliners in the current RVSM/RNP/RNAV crowded airspace is not really a good idea, not to mention the fact that these machines are not designed to be flown manually the way that we used to know; there is too much FMS/MCP manipulation needed by someone or other, coupled with ATC RT and/or config changes by PM/(PNF) to make it an effective cross-monitoring operation, which is why both Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus want you to make full use of automation for a safe operation and also a smooth ride for the punters down the back.
I have also argued many times that we should be protecting our flying skills by doing more raw data exercises in the sim, rather than wasting time on these "politically correct" LOFT scenarios. Why would I want to spend one hour of LPC time doing low vis taxi at AMS and full deicing procedures before take-off?!. Then they try to cram so many scenarios in (at strange, complicated airfields) that you come out wondering what on earth you learned here; no time to review fine details and most obscure but potentially important points forgotten as soon as you walk out the door with a successful pass and a good "score".
It's called "Information Overload". However, thankfully the trend seems to be going away from this particular mindset, with a new breed in training, although still a way to go.If they want to check my knowledge of automation systems, then incorporate some Fixed Base training time, and leave the full flight sim for something more useful.
I know all these points have been covered ad infinitum by previous contributors on this and other threads, but I have to ask myself-why do we forever keep on reinventing the old wheel?
Another favorite quote (Samuel Johnston?)- "Man has oft more need to be reminded than informed", and I've lost count of how many times I've posted that hoary old one on this forum
Without any doubt, we'll all be repeating ourselves a hundred or more posts down the line....
I preferred the post from the ex-mil gent who pointed the obvious - even the most skilled ex-fast jet jockey will lose a lot (if not most) of his handling skills if he doesn't practise them regularly.
Wasn't that what this thread was about...?
Have also argued many times on this forum, that manual flying todays airliners in the current RVSM/RNP/RNAV crowded airspace is not really a good idea, not to mention the fact that these machines are not designed to be flown manually the way that we used to know; there is too much FMS/MCP manipulation needed by someone or other, coupled with ATC RT and/or config changes by PM/(PNF) to make it an effective cross-monitoring operation, which is why both Mr Boeing and Mr Airbus want you to make full use of automation for a safe operation and also a smooth ride for the punters down the back.
I have also argued many times that we should be protecting our flying skills by doing more raw data exercises in the sim, rather than wasting time on these "politically correct" LOFT scenarios. Why would I want to spend one hour of LPC time doing low vis taxi at AMS and full deicing procedures before take-off?!. Then they try to cram so many scenarios in (at strange, complicated airfields) that you come out wondering what on earth you learned here; no time to review fine details and most obscure but potentially important points forgotten as soon as you walk out the door with a successful pass and a good "score".
It's called "Information Overload". However, thankfully the trend seems to be going away from this particular mindset, with a new breed in training, although still a way to go.If they want to check my knowledge of automation systems, then incorporate some Fixed Base training time, and leave the full flight sim for something more useful.
I know all these points have been covered ad infinitum by previous contributors on this and other threads, but I have to ask myself-why do we forever keep on reinventing the old wheel?
Another favorite quote (Samuel Johnston?)- "Man has oft more need to be reminded than informed", and I've lost count of how many times I've posted that hoary old one on this forum
Without any doubt, we'll all be repeating ourselves a hundred or more posts down the line....
Reminds me of TFBNDY from med school!
So much contempt in those words... Listen young man, you can have quite proficient pilots with brown or yellow skins, but that engrained feeling of superiority is so common in your beer "culture"... And by the way, tell the americans about the "non western" Vietnamese fighter pilots in the 60s ...
This is an interesting and important thread that highlights industry deficiencies. Your first post was absurd in content and you've followed up with consistency and the introduction of personal abuse.
I'm happy to take this offline and spare others the slanging match but first.....
Major Holland killed his B52 crew in sadly spectacular fashion. His hazardous attitude has a similarity to yours in your opening post. Where you seem to think that because you have barrel rolled a probably non-aerobatic certified transport aircraft, the solution to the airline industry of diminishing hand flying skills, would be to just unashamedly recruit more military pilots.
I stand by my comments.The last thing the industry needs is to recruit Maj Bob Hollands types.
When you opened up with listen young man I thought what an idiot. You then displayed a poor understanding of the argument by playing the race card where it had no reason to be played. There is a significant ideological difference between the training of the Western and non-Western fighter pilots that seems to have manifested itself in difficulty transitioning to an airline environment. Indeed, in the seventies, some Warsaw Pact countries had expensive, government funded civilian flying academies to address safety problems associated with using ex-mil crews in their state owned airlines.
The Vietnamese air force analogy was a poor one. Yes, a small number were successful against Americans who were severely restricted by their ROE. Vietnamese ( possibly Russian and North Korean ) pilots used guerilla warfare hit and run tactics that initially worked against Washington controlled fighter bomber formations. If the Americans were permitted to bomb the radar stations and command and control facilities that so successfully positioned Migs into advantageous positions, their initial successes may not have occurred.
I digress. Quite simply, most pilots from a non-Western background in military aircraft are start again candidates. Their training and culture are vastly different to what transitions comfortably to an airline cockpit.
You move on and have a crack at others who argue the handling differences between a fighter and an airliner. This needn't worry you because you tell us you flew Jaguars in the desert and at "high altitude"; I can tell you it worried Airbus and Boeing enough in their mid 90's push to have airlines introduce upset training, where they were concerned not only with poor civilian experience levels in aerobatics or extreme attitudes, but also with ex- military crews who may use inappropriate recovery techniques with airliners.
If you want to abuse me because of my culture I would be thrilled to continue this offline via PM- especially as you seem to be French and my grandfathers fought your wars for you cleaning up your collaborators in the Middle East.
Or, we can continue here and add to the debate on an important air safety issue.
Last edited by Gnadenburg; 27th Jul 2012 at 16:11.
Those of you who have been knocking ex-military pilots - it would appear that the CAA agree with you! The revised CAP804 has just removed all military exemptions for skill tests - which, in the most ridiculous and extreme example, means that an A1 Tutor QFI/IRE with thousands of hours' instructional time has to take a skills test just to get a PPL! Yes, a PPL! Crazy - and more than a little insulting.
Even to me (as a current military man) it says that the CAA do not trust the military training output, or worse, the military do not trust themselves (the revised document was based on a submission from the RAF). Should we be allowed into controlled airspace at all if our training really doesn't qualify us for even a PPL?
Even to me (as a current military man) it says that the CAA do not trust the military training output, or worse, the military do not trust themselves (the revised document was based on a submission from the RAF). Should we be allowed into controlled airspace at all if our training really doesn't qualify us for even a PPL?
I don't think anyone here is knocking military pilots. I question the assumption that if you are ex-mil you will automatically make a good airline pilot. It's just not the case.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,831
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TallestPoppy
Sheppey, at what stage was this offered by the Captain?
If this had been a discussion prior to the top of descent, then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine.
Despite there probably being a nice diagram in the QRH, a sharing of each pilots understanding of how the approach would be flown, at what config, at what point, and how any go-around would be flown would go a long way to ensuring a safe outcome.
If this had been a discussion prior to the top of descent, then a mental model could have been shared, and agreement had on how the visual approach would be fine.
Despite there probably being a nice diagram in the QRH, a sharing of each pilots understanding of how the approach would be flown, at what config, at what point, and how any go-around would be flown would go a long way to ensuring a safe outcome.
What the hell happened to FLYING the aeroplane????????????
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ireland
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well , I regularly fly with 4 ex mil FOs in my base and they all failed the upgrade on the first attempt and they were arrogant , over confident, had poor interpersonal skills , 2 of them had poor hygiene , and they all had issues with authority. I would love to have had a chance to operate a fast jet or any high performance military
aircraft and I think the experience you can get is excellent but as I said form what I have seen , more often than not they're just annoying to fly with Lack of humility and an inability to hold their hands up when they make a mistake is also an issue. Just an observation !
aircraft and I think the experience you can get is excellent but as I said form what I have seen , more often than not they're just annoying to fly with Lack of humility and an inability to hold their hands up when they make a mistake is also an issue. Just an observation !
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: asdf
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street
My take would be the conspiracy theory that the Powers to be in the RAF have pulled a political move. They want to make it more difficult for the military pilot to leave and fly in the civillain world.
My take would be the conspiracy theory that the Powers to be in the RAF have pulled a political move. They want to make it more difficult for the military pilot to leave and fly in the civillain world.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Third planet from the sun
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's NOT ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight!
I've been reading through this thread with interest and amazement.
I'm absolutely flabagasted by some of the comments I have come across:
What???? Are you serious? I'm sorry, but if you can't do that (anymore) you do not belong in a cockpit (anymore). An other “AF447” waiting to happen?
What? Struggling to do a basic maneuver? What do you mean? Are you struggling to fly a manual raw data ILS approach in bening weather? If the answer is yes... you do not belong in that cockpit!
The word "should" is the previous sentence makes me worry a lot! I say: if you ever find yourself in a situation where you think “what's it doing now”, there's absolutely nothing wrong with switching all automatics off and manually fly the plane the way you want it to. I would go even further: every airline pilot should be able to do just that before he's released on line!
If you really need that flight director, once again you do not belong in that cockpit!
Please let me know what company you fly for. Given a choice I would rather avoid such a company!
There is really no excuse for Airlines who forbid their pilots to keep their raw data handflying skills up to date.
Last year I started a thread in the tech log about “Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?” I invite you to read it.
The low-timers are not the problem, but the training departments are! In my company it's done like this: Starting in the type-rating sim sessions the F/O's in training are learned to fly the Airbus manually (A/P, F/D & A/THR off) on many occasions whenever the exercise permits it. (And, for training, having one engine out is NOT a good reason to keep the A/P on. 
) Then, during base training they'll fly a few touch and go's, again without the automatics. Later on, during the initial line training, they will be asked to fly manual raw data approaches, whenever the conditions permit it. Believe me, once they're fully released on line they'll handfly the A320 pretty well, or ... they won't be released on line.
Unlike many others my company encourages pilots to keep their handflying skills up to date. Most of the time, I don't have to suggest my F/O's to turn the automatics off. they will have asked me before if they can. More often it happens, especially with the newly released kids, that I have to suggest them that it would be wise to fly with the automatics on when the atis warns us about low clouds and moderate visibility or when flying into a busy airport we are not familiar with! It's not they are not smart enough to know that, it's just that they were so used to raw data flying during their training, that using the automatics for approach had become the exception, rather then the rule.
I'll admit that sometimes those new F/O's are not so great in using the automatics. For instance, the first time they have to intercept a G/S from above with the A/P, they will often have a problem. Not amazing, they've trained it once in the sim and then they were expecting it! So confronted to this situation these guys (and girls) will disconnect the A/P when it captures the initial approach alt before the G/S iso using the Airbus procedure for this. (dialling the altitude up and using V/S to get to the G/S.) Oh well, manually intercepting the slope and then re-engaging the A/P gets the job done just as well and it gives me something to talk about during a friendly post-flight debrief.
In our company nobody will build a FMC visual circuit! 
Remember it's a visual circuit. I will use the timing on downwind leg like Mr Airbus says in the FCOM on the rare occasion where I can start the downwind at 1500' AGL and the other times I'll use brains and common sense to adapt the visual pattern in function of height and speed. It doesn't take a cowboy (believe me, I'm not) to do that and it isn't rocket science either. It just takes some practice and common sense! Aren't visual patterns something you learned since your very first flight hours?
Come on fellows: stop looking for excuses thinking it's ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight as an airline pilot flying one of the modern Airbus or Boeing devices. I'm sure you can fly that A380 manually with just raw data once you're on the intercept heading for the ILS in LHR or SIN when the weather is nice enough! Or are you flying for one of those companies stopping their pilots to stay proficient, then please try to get that that policy changed. You owe it to the passengers!
Happy landings!
I'm absolutely flabagasted by some of the comments I have come across:
As far as being able to grab the jet from the autopilot in IMC when everything is going pear shaped? I don't think so.
Now days I am struggling to do a basic maneuver. I still do them from time to time, but only when well briefed with weather and traffic conditions permitting.
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. ......Additionally, in most modern jets, any hand flying intervention should normally be limited to establishing stable flight and re-engaging the automatics
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.
There is really no excuse for Airlines who forbid their pilots to keep their raw data handflying skills up to date.
Last year I started a thread in the tech log about “Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?” I invite you to read it.
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.
) Then, during base training they'll fly a few touch and go's, again without the automatics. Later on, during the initial line training, they will be asked to fly manual raw data approaches, whenever the conditions permit it. Believe me, once they're fully released on line they'll handfly the A320 pretty well, or ... they won't be released on line.Unlike many others my company encourages pilots to keep their handflying skills up to date. Most of the time, I don't have to suggest my F/O's to turn the automatics off. they will have asked me before if they can. More often it happens, especially with the newly released kids, that I have to suggest them that it would be wise to fly with the automatics on when the atis warns us about low clouds and moderate visibility or when flying into a busy airport we are not familiar with! It's not they are not smart enough to know that, it's just that they were so used to raw data flying during their training, that using the automatics for approach had become the exception, rather then the rule.
I'll admit that sometimes those new F/O's are not so great in using the automatics. For instance, the first time they have to intercept a G/S from above with the A/P, they will often have a problem. Not amazing, they've trained it once in the sim and then they were expecting it! So confronted to this situation these guys (and girls) will disconnect the A/P when it captures the initial approach alt before the G/S iso using the Airbus procedure for this. (dialling the altitude up and using V/S to get to the G/S.) Oh well, manually intercepting the slope and then re-engaging the A/P gets the job done just as well and it gives me something to talk about during a friendly post-flight debrief.
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.
"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.
Remember it's a visual circuit. I will use the timing on downwind leg like Mr Airbus says in the FCOM on the rare occasion where I can start the downwind at 1500' AGL and the other times I'll use brains and common sense to adapt the visual pattern in function of height and speed. It doesn't take a cowboy (believe me, I'm not) to do that and it isn't rocket science either. It just takes some practice and common sense! Aren't visual patterns something you learned since your very first flight hours?Come on fellows: stop looking for excuses thinking it's ok not to be proficient in raw data manual flight as an airline pilot flying one of the modern Airbus or Boeing devices. I'm sure you can fly that A380 manually with just raw data once you're on the intercept heading for the ILS in LHR or SIN when the weather is nice enough! Or are you flying for one of those companies stopping their pilots to stay proficient, then please try to get that that policy changed. You owe it to the passengers!
Happy landings!
Last edited by sabenaboy; 31st Jul 2012 at 10:41. Reason: spelling
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stranded
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the automation issue: if you can't readily to hand fly an aircraft if needed within ATP tolerances you have no place in the cockpit. At my company due to the nature of our airspace and our approaches, as well as autoflight restrictions, many are hand flown with no flight director or a flight director used only for secondary reference. We've had a couple relatively high time jet pilots (5000+ hours, which is high for a turboprop operator) fail our training due to our emphasis on flying unique approaches using raw data or limited FD use.
Honestly in transport category turboprops a pilot can fly the aircraft smoother and more precisely than the autopilot. I found this is often the case on many older jet aircraft as well.
On the military issue, my company has a lot of military pilots and a lot of civilian pilots. I've found military to be no better or worse than civilians, though the high performance fighter pilots definitely seem to generally have more attitude and a notably authoritarian command style.
Honestly in transport category turboprops a pilot can fly the aircraft smoother and more precisely than the autopilot. I found this is often the case on many older jet aircraft as well.
On the military issue, my company has a lot of military pilots and a lot of civilian pilots. I've found military to be no better or worse than civilians, though the high performance fighter pilots definitely seem to generally have more attitude and a notably authoritarian command style.
Last edited by Island-Flyer; 28th Jul 2012 at 10:16.
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Sweden
Age: 54
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RE: post #97
Well said Sabenaboy, I agree!
I once flew Be1900´s in and out of Miami International, and I always flew manually. Some seem to consider that dangerous, but we had no choice, because there was no autopilot installed in any of the aircraft.
The more you practise, the easier and more precise it gets.
When disengaging the A/P and A/T, on intercept heading for an ILS, the pilot monitoring should monitor the same way as he should (but probably doesn´t) monitor the autopilot. The only addition to his normal duties, is setting the speed bug.
I once flew Be1900´s in and out of Miami International, and I always flew manually. Some seem to consider that dangerous, but we had no choice, because there was no autopilot installed in any of the aircraft.
The more you practise, the easier and more precise it gets.
When disengaging the A/P and A/T, on intercept heading for an ILS, the pilot monitoring should monitor the same way as he should (but probably doesn´t) monitor the autopilot. The only addition to his normal duties, is setting the speed bug.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Uh... Where was I?
Posts: 1,338
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sabenaboy
I quote myself
What do you think of this brilliant idea of mine? I am outraged that no one commented it! 
It could satisfy both the manufacturers, the operators, the pilots and the authorities, because automation would still be there, normally, and sometimes it would be there, although standing by.
It would be something like arming the FD. And even the A/THR. These would be activated only if required by the system
I find this idea very nice, mainly because I had it. But it has more and more good points the more I think about it. I like those systems that are complementary to the human being, rather than substitutes. TCAS and GPWS are such systems. They complement deficiencies of the human being, but they don't substitute us. We need safety nets, rather than delegating more and more in a system which in the end is also prone to failure, and that when it fails things will be complicated due to pilot atrophy.
I wish my airline had your policy, but it does not. It recommends highest use of automation, although it leaves a tiny chance for practice.
I quote myself
In my opinion, with actual technology there should be a way to fly an airplane halfway between manually and using automation. By manually I mean zero automation, and I am not referring to the FD bars.
This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.
Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.
WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.
And we would have so much more fun!
This "hybrid" way of flying would be such that the pilot would have to to the thinking and to have controls like in a Cessna, but the system would warn the pilot and come up to assist when it was departing the intended flight path or getting close to envelope limits.
Imagine that you want to fly an ILS and instead of the AP/FD A/THR, you use the "HYBRID" mode, in which the AP/FD approach mode is standing by. If you are rusty or that day is not your day, or you are a 200 hr trainee with a lot to learn and you go too far off the beam, then the bars come up. The procedure is that if they come up, you follow the bars, engage A/THR and even engage AP depending on circumstances.
WIth such a system, pilots would remain highly skilled and we would still benefit from the increased safety that we owe to automation.
And we would have so much more fun!
It could satisfy both the manufacturers, the operators, the pilots and the authorities, because automation would still be there, normally, and sometimes it would be there, although standing by.
It would be something like arming the FD. And even the A/THR. These would be activated only if required by the system
I find this idea very nice, mainly because I had it. But it has more and more good points the more I think about it. I like those systems that are complementary to the human being, rather than substitutes. TCAS and GPWS are such systems. They complement deficiencies of the human being, but they don't substitute us. We need safety nets, rather than delegating more and more in a system which in the end is also prone to failure, and that when it fails things will be complicated due to pilot atrophy.
I wish my airline had your policy, but it does not. It recommends highest use of automation, although it leaves a tiny chance for practice.