Flight directors may cause more problems than they are designed to solve
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the lesson I get from that is that when workload and stress are at a peak, FD bars are what a pilot will follow, disregarding other sources of information.
Blindly following FD's isn't the answer. The answer is adjusted your attitude so that the FD's respond the way you want them to.
The FD 'stare' will eventually fail you if you have automation confusion and aren't backing it up with the standard instrument scan - attitude/pitch/power, verify performance via airspeed/heading/VVI/altimeter/navigation instruments.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Location Location
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nailed it in one TLB...
This is just what we told my old company's flight management team in 1990 when they tried to make the steam driven 737 - 200 a de facto NG aircraft.
25 minutes of absolutely essential viewing. This video has been used for a number of years in the refresher training of a loco UK based airline.
Without wishing to feed the troll, perhaps Agaricus bisporus could let us know who he flies with and when ... so we can avoid.
.
This is just what we told my old company's flight management team in 1990 when they tried to make the steam driven 737 - 200 a de facto NG aircraft.
25 minutes of absolutely essential viewing. This video has been used for a number of years in the refresher training of a loco UK based airline.
Without wishing to feed the troll, perhaps Agaricus bisporus could let us know who he flies with and when ... so we can avoid.
.
Last edited by Hobo; 25th Mar 2013 at 10:25.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlemen,
We're probably all in agreement that in our profession the hand flying skills are of utmost importance. The paradox is that we hardly get any opportunity to practice it.
Slowly the regulators are realizing this too. In my country the regulator is requiring raw data approaches during the TQ (B777) and lately also A/T off approaches, where previously even "manual" approaches were flown with A/T on. So, slowly the powers that be are seeing the light.
Now it's just a question of convincing the companies to allocate more time and money on training these skills. In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.
Ultimately it's in our own hands to demand we get the opportunity to maintain our skills.
We're probably all in agreement that in our profession the hand flying skills are of utmost importance. The paradox is that we hardly get any opportunity to practice it.
Slowly the regulators are realizing this too. In my country the regulator is requiring raw data approaches during the TQ (B777) and lately also A/T off approaches, where previously even "manual" approaches were flown with A/T on. So, slowly the powers that be are seeing the light.
Now it's just a question of convincing the companies to allocate more time and money on training these skills. In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.
Ultimately it's in our own hands to demand we get the opportunity to maintain our skills.
Ultimately it's in our own hands to demand we get the opportunity to maintain our skills.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I appreciate one has to tread carefully in many companies. But simply being able to fly the expensive equipment in a safe manner is not too much to ask, is it? As always, C'est la tone qui fait la musique.
It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!
Looking at the thread about the easyjet strikebreakers in Lisbon and now this, it seems to me that perhaps some people are comfortable accepting nonsense from the companies, as long as they don't have to stick their neck out.
But perhaps I digress......
It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!
Looking at the thread about the easyjet strikebreakers in Lisbon and now this, it seems to me that perhaps some people are comfortable accepting nonsense from the companies, as long as they don't have to stick their neck out.
But perhaps I digress......
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're probably all in agreement that in our profession the hand flying skills are of utmost importance. The paradox is that we hardly get any opportunity to practice it.
It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!
In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.
I understand the sentiments, but can't agree with them entirely. A few moments in the sim every year is not a solution. It is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. In my early days on needles & dials the visual approach was the norm. Greeks islands, you had no choice, and it was fun. Spool up before 1500' in an idle descent from FL330 and you bought the beers. The same was true going into LGW, or any airport where the skies were clear, even at night, and a visual approach was requested. This was not cowboy stuff, it was common sense piloting. No rip**** rock & roll circuits; no death dives gear & speed brake just good smooth efficient safe piloting. There was a real sense of achievement. "hardly any opportunity to practice..." there are many opportunities, but some CP's don't let you take them. e.g. instrument approaches only, radar vectors mandatory, no shorter than 4nm, LNAV/VNAV to OM etc. etc. All that nonsense on a severe clear day in the Canaries. Absolute rubbish and one day it will return to haunt those who allowed this situation to evolve. I still say the pax expect us to be the last insurance policy to save their necks. They pay us quite well and they expect their policy to pay out when needed.
When I was on the line, if appropriate, I'd point out the airfield at 40nm and invite a visual without ILS. First reaction was hesitation about how to do it, and then the inevitable "are we allowed to do this?". When encouraged they gave it a go, wobbled a little, and tried their best. The spectrum of success was terrible to behold. The reactions to the failures was "we've not been trained and do not practice:" to "why bother, it's never necessary?" Try doing the circle to land CIA 15 at night on a windy evening.
People often quote the excellent 'Children of the Magenta line". It's very relevant and true. For a little Hollywood tittilation search You Tube for Space Cowboys and the manual approach in the Space Shuttle. When Tommy Lee was asked what the hell he was doing, he answered "I need to know what to do if the computers fail."
Holding your head in your hands between your knees and kissing your ass goodbye is not the correct answer.
I leave behind many fun years which became less so in the twilight due to the mamby pamby attitude. I am nervous about the future, as I would be for any profession where skills are encouraged to be diluted. It scares me when I speak to a friend, a heart surgeon. He came up through the ranks of general medicine, general surgery, and then specialised in hearts. His foundations are solid, and he spent time as an anaesthetist. Very rounded and knowledgeable in his profession. Now he tells me heart surgeons are like todays captains; fast tracked on a specialist route. They are heart surgeons, and other then the basic medical training for doctors, they have very little foundation. Would you like to know that when the mask goes over your nose & mouth. Blind faith = ignorance is bliss. Our pax are just the same. I hope they are not let down by their faith. Everytime I watch 'Air Crash Investigation' I wonder where our proud profession
is going. Sometimes I salute the gladiators who vanquished the lions; other times I wonder why they were in the same arena.
Now, still teaching TQ courses, I am troubled by the bare minimums of the syllabus. It's tick in boxes and focus on passing the exam. The attitude is "they will learn on the line". That might have been true when commands took 8 years at best (charter airlines), but that is where the diverse nature of our profession and required handling skills were learnt. In the legacy carriers it could be 15 years and over a variety of a/c and operational theatres. They too gained much knowledge, different, before responsibility. Now, in short-haul LoCo's the rise to the top step is 4 years. The a/c might not break as often; there are more ILS's; there are more radars from takeoff to touchdown, the SOP's are more thorough, but the brain is still young. Ones hopes it develops before it is tested. That is the risk the industry has chosen to take. As Dave Allen used to sign off with, "may your God go with you."
It's us, as pilots that have to point it out. We need good training!
In my company this is happening, with an allocated time slot in every sim detail to practice whatever you want. Mostly the pilots choose to practice basic handflying skills.
I understand the sentiments, but can't agree with them entirely. A few moments in the sim every year is not a solution. It is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound. In my early days on needles & dials the visual approach was the norm. Greeks islands, you had no choice, and it was fun. Spool up before 1500' in an idle descent from FL330 and you bought the beers. The same was true going into LGW, or any airport where the skies were clear, even at night, and a visual approach was requested. This was not cowboy stuff, it was common sense piloting. No rip**** rock & roll circuits; no death dives gear & speed brake just good smooth efficient safe piloting. There was a real sense of achievement. "hardly any opportunity to practice..." there are many opportunities, but some CP's don't let you take them. e.g. instrument approaches only, radar vectors mandatory, no shorter than 4nm, LNAV/VNAV to OM etc. etc. All that nonsense on a severe clear day in the Canaries. Absolute rubbish and one day it will return to haunt those who allowed this situation to evolve. I still say the pax expect us to be the last insurance policy to save their necks. They pay us quite well and they expect their policy to pay out when needed.
When I was on the line, if appropriate, I'd point out the airfield at 40nm and invite a visual without ILS. First reaction was hesitation about how to do it, and then the inevitable "are we allowed to do this?". When encouraged they gave it a go, wobbled a little, and tried their best. The spectrum of success was terrible to behold. The reactions to the failures was "we've not been trained and do not practice:" to "why bother, it's never necessary?" Try doing the circle to land CIA 15 at night on a windy evening.
People often quote the excellent 'Children of the Magenta line". It's very relevant and true. For a little Hollywood tittilation search You Tube for Space Cowboys and the manual approach in the Space Shuttle. When Tommy Lee was asked what the hell he was doing, he answered "I need to know what to do if the computers fail."
Holding your head in your hands between your knees and kissing your ass goodbye is not the correct answer.
I leave behind many fun years which became less so in the twilight due to the mamby pamby attitude. I am nervous about the future, as I would be for any profession where skills are encouraged to be diluted. It scares me when I speak to a friend, a heart surgeon. He came up through the ranks of general medicine, general surgery, and then specialised in hearts. His foundations are solid, and he spent time as an anaesthetist. Very rounded and knowledgeable in his profession. Now he tells me heart surgeons are like todays captains; fast tracked on a specialist route. They are heart surgeons, and other then the basic medical training for doctors, they have very little foundation. Would you like to know that when the mask goes over your nose & mouth. Blind faith = ignorance is bliss. Our pax are just the same. I hope they are not let down by their faith. Everytime I watch 'Air Crash Investigation' I wonder where our proud profession
is going. Sometimes I salute the gladiators who vanquished the lions; other times I wonder why they were in the same arena.
Now, still teaching TQ courses, I am troubled by the bare minimums of the syllabus. It's tick in boxes and focus on passing the exam. The attitude is "they will learn on the line". That might have been true when commands took 8 years at best (charter airlines), but that is where the diverse nature of our profession and required handling skills were learnt. In the legacy carriers it could be 15 years and over a variety of a/c and operational theatres. They too gained much knowledge, different, before responsibility. Now, in short-haul LoCo's the rise to the top step is 4 years. The a/c might not break as often; there are more ILS's; there are more radars from takeoff to touchdown, the SOP's are more thorough, but the brain is still young. Ones hopes it develops before it is tested. That is the risk the industry has chosen to take. As Dave Allen used to sign off with, "may your God go with you."
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: -11`
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAT 5, I totally agree with your posting.
I know the few moments in the sim is insufficient. But often it is the only chance you get.
Apart from the points you make in your own posting, let me explain why we hardly get any opportunity to practice. I fly long haul and in a good month I get to make two landings. Mostly this is on busy airports where you simply get no chance to make a visual approach. Try asking for a visual with Heathrow Director.
This is the paradox I'm talking about. I used to fly 737 and we got a fair amount of visual approaches on the quiet airports. We also did a lot more stretches and landings obviously.
We're all human and as such we need training to maintain skills we cannot practice.
I know the few moments in the sim is insufficient. But often it is the only chance you get.
Apart from the points you make in your own posting, let me explain why we hardly get any opportunity to practice. I fly long haul and in a good month I get to make two landings. Mostly this is on busy airports where you simply get no chance to make a visual approach. Try asking for a visual with Heathrow Director.
This is the paradox I'm talking about. I used to fly 737 and we got a fair amount of visual approaches on the quiet airports. We also did a lot more stretches and landings obviously.
We're all human and as such we need training to maintain skills we cannot practice.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try asking for a visual with Heathrow Director.
Standing by for a lot of flak from automation junkies horrified at the thought of actually flying through the London TMA rather than letting George do it...
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,091
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Standing by for a lot of flak from automation junkies horrified at the thought
of actually flying through the London TMA rather than letting George do it...
of actually flying through the London TMA rather than letting George do it...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on thin ice
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parabellum,
from BIG/LAM/OCK/BNN outbound. LHR is easy because you always know what you're going to get, it's always the same vectors and speed
I'm guessing Main Dog is talking about the arrival to LHR and not the noise abatement SIDs.
from BIG/LAM/OCK/BNN outbound. LHR is easy because you always know what you're going to get, it's always the same vectors and speed
I'm guessing Main Dog is talking about the arrival to LHR and not the noise abatement SIDs.
Last edited by sodapop; 25th Mar 2013 at 21:40.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 658
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely Sodapop, I'm talking about the Heathrow canned arrival, leave LAM hdg 270 degrees speed 220 kts etc etc, just a matter of flying the usual vectors and speeds. Granted, it's a bit of an extreme example due to the busy nature of Heathrow and there are certainly better places to practice, but it should not be beyond the ability of even a freshly minted F/O.
The SIDs are a little trickier because of the combination of high rates of climb and dense traffic, you certainly wouldn't want to bust a level in London TMA.
Airlines that have mandatory autopilot engagement SOPs really get up my nose, and are in my opinion one of the major contributors to the current erosion of handling skills that the industry is slowly beginning to acknowledge. These airlines effectively want to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they require you to always use the A/P (and reap the perceived immediate benefits of increased safety and passenger comfort), on the other hand the day automation fails they expect you to magically transition to pitch and power hand flying and save everybody's bacon.
Unless they are putting you into the sim for a session of pure stick and rudder practice at least once a month ($$$$), by the time you need the skills -that you probably had to demonstrate in the interview sim- they will have eroded. You can't have it both ways: opportunities must be provided to develop and maintain proficient handling skills, otherwise you are simply sweeping the problem under a carpet and creating basic handling problems in the long term.
The SIDs are a little trickier because of the combination of high rates of climb and dense traffic, you certainly wouldn't want to bust a level in London TMA.
Airlines that have mandatory autopilot engagement SOPs really get up my nose, and are in my opinion one of the major contributors to the current erosion of handling skills that the industry is slowly beginning to acknowledge. These airlines effectively want to have their cake and eat it too: on the one hand they require you to always use the A/P (and reap the perceived immediate benefits of increased safety and passenger comfort), on the other hand the day automation fails they expect you to magically transition to pitch and power hand flying and save everybody's bacon.
Unless they are putting you into the sim for a session of pure stick and rudder practice at least once a month ($$$$), by the time you need the skills -that you probably had to demonstrate in the interview sim- they will have eroded. You can't have it both ways: opportunities must be provided to develop and maintain proficient handling skills, otherwise you are simply sweeping the problem under a carpet and creating basic handling problems in the long term.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seat 0A. Greetings, Indeed I see your point. If you were with an airline with multi types e.g. small/medium/large you would hopefully have learnt the basic skills before venturing to the heady heights of long-haul cockpits. While you may not have frequent opportunities to keep your hand in any chance would be grasped. At least you knew how to do it once upon a time. The real question here is that there are short-haul operators that do not encourage the acquisition and maintenance of these basic skills. Those pilots will never learn them. A few moments in the sim is not a solution; indeed there is the threat that they think they can then poll around the sky and come a cropper when attempting it.
From friends in Cathay in the old Kai Tak days I understand it was a command upgrade requirement to demonstrate a checker board visual arrival. As many SFO's were baby sitting for many months, on the 3rd seat as F/O's were being trained, their handling skills were very rusty when they arrived for a command course. For some it was one approach too far. Their once honed skills had been diluted, but at least they once had them and they could be recovered with a little effort and guidance. Never having had them it will take much longer to attain them, and in todays environment and philosophy it is not uncommon that they will always remain a magical mystery.
There are airlines that train cadets with the basic base training circuit, as per the norm. Round and round they go until BTRE is satisfied they will not give the LTC's nor pax a fright. However, they will never be allowed to perform such a circuit again on the line. Too dangerous, causes too many G/A's etc.etc. What chance have the got to hone their piloting skills. VNAV/LNAV to OM. It's a U$60m play station with a bit of Wii thrown in. Soon they'll have their own sims at home. Studying by 'flying the arm chair' will become a fact. Good game, good game, but the scores on the doors might not be attractive.
From friends in Cathay in the old Kai Tak days I understand it was a command upgrade requirement to demonstrate a checker board visual arrival. As many SFO's were baby sitting for many months, on the 3rd seat as F/O's were being trained, their handling skills were very rusty when they arrived for a command course. For some it was one approach too far. Their once honed skills had been diluted, but at least they once had them and they could be recovered with a little effort and guidance. Never having had them it will take much longer to attain them, and in todays environment and philosophy it is not uncommon that they will always remain a magical mystery.
There are airlines that train cadets with the basic base training circuit, as per the norm. Round and round they go until BTRE is satisfied they will not give the LTC's nor pax a fright. However, they will never be allowed to perform such a circuit again on the line. Too dangerous, causes too many G/A's etc.etc. What chance have the got to hone their piloting skills. VNAV/LNAV to OM. It's a U$60m play station with a bit of Wii thrown in. Soon they'll have their own sims at home. Studying by 'flying the arm chair' will become a fact. Good game, good game, but the scores on the doors might not be attractive.
