Hand flying skills not a priority says Embry Riddle educator

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by GlueBall

I don't want to be chastised by new-schooled, senior check airman, for having come off the A/P & A/T too soon at 4000' during a vectored ILS in VMC; that I should have waited until after intercept of localizer; that company SOP calls for maximum use of automation in all phases of flight.

As far as I'm concerned, (20K hrs), the training industry is going to the dogs with rabid automation.

I couldn’t agree with you more solidly … ... in fact, I much prefer to have pilots actually “hand-fly” their airplanes somewhat regularly (something like once a month), to include departures up to something above 15,000 feet and descent from approximately the same altitude, to include the arrival, traffic pattern (if appropriate), approach, and landing. I’m not necessarily of the opinion that a lot of value is found in “hand-flying” straight and level while at cruise, although a periodic hand-flown change in altitude might be worth the effort periodically as well.

However, you and I can agree or disagree and that would be the end of it. I am trying to provide some motivation for pilots – all over the globe – to take these issues to their regulatory authority and ask for some support in assuring that each pilot has, and has not lost, his/her ability to fly the airplane that they are flying. It sounds redundant, but sometimes redundancy is a good thing. If the individual regulatory authority doesn’t appear interested, I would whole heartedly recommend contacting IFALPA, ICAO, and the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society to see what you, as an individual, can do to make your concerns and your desires known to someone who may be able to do something about it.

[bubbers44]

Glueball, it is so obvious you are right after the SFO incidents. Too much automation requirements on clear days dulls your flying skills to the point some pilots can't do a visual approach with some airlines.

[barit1]

I should think that the E/R "aviation educator" is - in a statistical sense - correct. Systems management is what it's all about, and those automatics never fail. Well, hardly ever (quoth Captain Corcoran)

But then again the ILS is sometimes shut down, eh?

[AirRabbit]

Originally Posted by de facto

The FAA seems to disagree....
Quote:
http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO13002.pdf

The salient portion of the SAFO referenced in de facto’s reference, above, says the following:

Operators are encouraged to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis of manual flight operations into both line operations and training (initial/upgrade and recurrent). Operational policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure there are appropriate opportunities for pilots to exercise manual flying skills, such as in non-RVSM airspace and during low workload conditions. In addition, policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure that pilots understand when to use the automated systems, such as during high workload conditions or airspace procedures that require use of autopilot for precise operations. Augmented crew operations may also limit the ability of some pilots to obtain practice in manual flight operations. Airline operational policies should ensure that all pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise the aforementioned knowledge and skills in flight operations.

It appears there is not only no FAA prohibition against a pilot’s remaining proficient in “manually controlled flight operations,” this document indicates that the FAA has suggested that airlines develop and incorporate policies that ensure pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise such manual flight operating skills.

In the US, at least, a decision maker at any US airline cannot say that having a formalized process for ensuring their pilots achieve and maintain manual flight operating skills is NOT authorized by the regulator. Therefore, those airlines that do have such a formalized process have decided that the benefits of having such a program outweigh whatever detriments might be cited; and, those airlines that do not have such a formalized process have either chosen to not make such a decision or have decided that the detriments of having such a program do, in fact, outweigh the benefits.

May I suggest that those persons who believe the detriments do, indeed, outweigh the benefits, are very likely not aviators themselves and, dare I say it, probably should NOT be making decisions about the process by which the pilots working for them obtain and maintain their competency. Logic would very likely reveal that the long-term success of an operation with such leadership is, most definitely, not assured. Of course, if that person is the owner or a significant purse-string holder – it may be that this person is involved in the business only for as long as it is beneficial to him or her.

The alternative, equally applicable to all aviation operations, would be for the regulator to define in the rules, the requirements for training, proficiency, as well as for recurrent training and maintaining individual competency. Believe me, I am fully aware of what it would mean for any regulatory authority to operate with unwanted and/or unwarranted intrusiveness – but if that intrusiveness could be mitigated to an acceptable degree – say by ensuring that any such regulatory authority or requirement is developed in a mutually beneficial and mutually participative atmosphere – I believe it could be beneficial to virtually everyone concerned.

However, I believe the only way such an action can be started is through an effort of the regulated to approach the regulator to propose such a process. Additionally, I am of the opinion that if it is done correctly and with full openness, I think it will work – to the advantage of all of us. What do the participants here think?

[latetonite]

I think you should learn to, and be able to fly, before you sell your skills to the public.

[Centaurus]

Company SOP may or may not encourage hand flying when appropriate. The fact remains there are airline pilots so wedded to the automatics, that they have become apprehensive (scared fartless) or possibly plain lazy, of hand flying; apart from the take off and touch down. Once these personalities are promoted (as they somehow inevitably are) into check pilot positions, some become quite paranoid and insist that the automatics must be used at all times.

Recently there was the case where a check pilot acting as an F/O criticised the captain for hand flying the departure to 15,000 ft where the autopilot was engaged. The captain explained that the weather was fine, there were no pressing ATC requirements and that he simply enjoyed keeping his hand in on hand flying. The check captain disagreed, saying the company policy was all automatics from 500 ft after take off.

In fact, there was no such company policy. It was the check captain's personal policy. And these types are out there in every airline. So, it is not always a "company" policy where hand flying is discouraged, but more often a personal preference of the pilot in command. The unfortunate first officer then becomes a captive audience to the other chap's irrationality

[bubbers44]

Check airmen know no more about flying than line pilots, they chose to be check airmen. I told the story of how my check airman acting as my FO screwed up the automation so much out of SJO I just hand flew our departure and went opposite what he had programmed to follow our clearance. He finally caught up but I wish I had a first year FO that flight to make the automation match our clearance. It is hard to tell your check airman checking you out he doesn't have a clue what he is doing.

[bubbers44]

I am repeating this but my first B767 check out with a check airman as FO he wanted to take the leg to Dulles but he had it so screwed up high and fast I told him autopilot and autothrottle off, pull the speed brakes out, idle power, configure because he forgot to arm the approach mode so flew through glide slope and we dove down and salvaged the approach. We were to meet for breakfast but he didn't show up. He paced the grounds outside all night because he was so upset with himself. They aren't any better than us line guys.

[AirRabbit]

So … what I’m getting from this thread so far is that most of the “older” heads here believe that “hand flying” can be productive – and at least some here actually practice that belief, even if somewhat secretively – and most believe that the reason it’s not seen more regularly is due to either management edict or check airmen “self-gratifying preferences” shoved onto the line guys.

It seems to me that if this “practice” can be beneficial, but someone, someplace has decided “not-on-my-airline/airplane,” things are likely not to change unless someone in a superior position (either in fact or in theory) to those who are currently “having it their own way,” clearly says what will be done and makes this “hand flying” exposure a regular occurrence. Again, it seems that this will occur only if one of 2 things take place; 1) similar thinking line pilots pool their resources and buy the airline from the current owner and make such a practice logical and expected; or 2) the regulator adds such a requirement to the regulations and thereby makes such a practice necessary to comply with the rules, if not logical and expected as well … and I’ll leave to your imagination which of those alternatives is the most logically to occur … at least, in my not-so-humble opinion.

And … as long as I’m expressing my opinions, the apparently clear outcome – should neither of the above alternatives be instituted – is the collective recognition we all will have as the number of apparently silly, stupid, forgetful, incompetent, or otherwise unprofessional accidents or incidents continues to climb. So … do we all continue to complain or do we do something about it? I know what I’m doing … and I’ll keep on doing it until this idiocy ceases or I can’t continue.

[c100driver]

I told the story of how my check airman acting as my FO screwed up the automation so much out of SJO I just hand flew our departure and went opposite what he had programmed to follow our clearance. He finally caught up but I wish I had a first year FO that flight to make the automation match our clearance.

and

I am repeating this but my first B767 check out with a check airman as FO he wanted to take the leg to Dulles but he had it so screwed up high and fast I told him autopilot and autothrottle off, pull the speed brakes out, idle power, configure because he forgot to arm the approach mode so flew through glide slope and we dove down and salvaged the approach.

It appears to me that you have just confirmed the E-R Educator comment that Automation Management is at least as important as Manipulation Skills?

And that, Panosian says, makes a pilot's need for systems and information management skills at least as important as their stick and rudder abilities,

Good Manipulation Skills needed to save Poor Automation Management?

However Good Automation Skills does not equal "no requirement for Good Manipulation Skills"

[stilton]

I would much prefer to fly with a Pilot who is not the 'master of automation' but can click off the a/p and a/t and fly the Aircraft competently.


If you seriously think that being an automation wonder makes you a good Pilot you are in the wrong business.


A legend in your own mind.

[latetonite]

In the simulator I see several space cadets flying a perfect healthy aircraft into the solid, on automatics.
When flying manual, this seems to happen less often.