Hand flying skills not a priority says Embry Riddle educator
Thread Starter
Hand flying skills not a priority says Embry Riddle educator
It's official. Hand flying skills not that important any more, says Embry Riddle spokesman. See latest AVWEB
Modern Flight Systems Redefining Good Pilots
After two recent high-profile crashes (UPS and Asiana Airlines Flight 214), both involving fatalities, media reports have questioned the role of automation in the cockpit and in the opinion of former Northwest Captain and current Embry Riddle educator Jack Panosian, those concerns may not be unfounded.
Panosian told AVweb Thursday that his observation is that stick and rudder skills may be falling down the list of important assets required by professional pilots -- but that's not entirely bad.
Modern jets, he says, generally are not hand-flown aircraft and some have been designed from the outset to be flown for nearly the entire flight on automation. 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, and arguably more important.
If the man is right - and I don't believe he is - I guess that means the industry will have to expect the occasional loss of control accidents as a normal chain of events and just add more band-aids in the form of more automatics to minimise the chances of pilots actually touching the controls
Modern Flight Systems Redefining Good Pilots
After two recent high-profile crashes (UPS and Asiana Airlines Flight 214), both involving fatalities, media reports have questioned the role of automation in the cockpit and in the opinion of former Northwest Captain and current Embry Riddle educator Jack Panosian, those concerns may not be unfounded.
Panosian told AVweb Thursday that his observation is that stick and rudder skills may be falling down the list of important assets required by professional pilots -- but that's not entirely bad.
Modern jets, he says, generally are not hand-flown aircraft and some have been designed from the outset to be flown for nearly the entire flight on automation. 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, and arguably more important.
If the man is right - and I don't believe he is - I guess that means the industry will have to expect the occasional loss of control accidents as a normal chain of events and just add more band-aids in the form of more automatics to minimise the chances of pilots actually touching the controls
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somehow I didn't get that fuzzy warm feeling hearing his new concept of future pilots. More automation will fix it though so don't waste your money learning to fly properly with flight controls when you can just push a button.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Capt Panosian's defense, he doesn't appear to say hand-flying is not important, he's saying that systems management is AS important as hand-flying, which isn't quite the same thing.
That's a very muppety statement...both skill sets need to be present. One is knowing the plane the other is flying the plane. Unfortunately only one is paid for....an FBT can be used for button pressing practice... The sim should be mostly hand flying
Last edited by Pugilistic Animus; 9th Sep 2013 at 19:43.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: chicago
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first off: every embry riddle pilot I've flown with has proven you don't need hand flying skills.
second: if you could have a girl friend that was smart, good looking, and great in bed or you could have a girlfriend that was smart...which would you take?
well, I'll take a pilot who knows how to hand fly WELL, when to hand fly and always be ready to takeover if the autos fail...and he should know how to make the automation work too.
but if you have to get rid of one thing...throw out the automation.
a good pilot or a good autopilot...I'll take the good pilot if I have to choose.
second: if you could have a girl friend that was smart, good looking, and great in bed or you could have a girlfriend that was smart...which would you take?
well, I'll take a pilot who knows how to hand fly WELL, when to hand fly and always be ready to takeover if the autos fail...and he should know how to make the automation work too.
but if you have to get rid of one thing...throw out the automation.
a good pilot or a good autopilot...I'll take the good pilot if I have to choose.
Person Of Interest
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Keystone Heights, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why they are called "Riddle Rockets"....as in the clown that took a Pinnacle CRJ to FL410 on a ferry flight and killed himself and the 23 yr old Gulfstream PFT F/O due to lack of stick and rudder skills, and non-knowledge of the A/C's systems...
Don't need to know how to "hand fly"?...Then why did you want to get a "Pilot Certificate"?...Why not an IT degree?
Don't need to know how to "hand fly"?...Then why did you want to get a "Pilot Certificate"?...Why not an IT degree?
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still focused on the girl I would choose. Sorry. If she went to Embry Riddle and was really hot did her dad pay her college loan off or would I have to? I know that sounds shallow.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I went to " Britain'S Air University" at Hamble, pre 1950, when most of the initial training for a Commercial Pilot's Licence was done using the Tiger Moth. We were told that it was a good training aircraft, because " It was easy to fly but difficult to fly well".
It had been the RAF's initial training type for many thousands of would be pilots. " simple to build or, if necessary, to repair". A hood over the rear, pupil's, cockpit allowed some instrument flying, with just a basic instrument panel, enough for a pupil to learn, as a beginner. (Another pilot sat in front as a safety pilot.)
Link Training was partially drawing patterns, but leaning how to/ not to stall and spin - and how to recover from both. Ground School took up half of each day and includes " How our parachutes were packed. " ( We sat on them in the Tiger Moth, but did NOT use them !)
Radio and more advanced instrument flying would come later in the course on other aircraft, some with different controls, ( throttle in right hand, stick in the left or even TWO engines and RADIO...!) Or with a much faster T/O, Cruising and landing speeds. For Night flying we used a flare path, with a glide slope pulsating light.
I passed the new examinations (until 1st Apr. it might have been for a "B Licence") and Ministry Flying tests and was issued with a CPL.(but without an I/R.) I had 150.hours (and 20 minutes!) I was employed the following day. Just Joy Riding, but a start. It was PAID experience for me.
Most people had to have their "Holidays at Home", because foreign currency was just not available ( it was limited to £25 pa. each)
My employer might be paid 7/6 by each of my two passengers for a "Quick Flip" or £1/10 for a longer trip. I also did some one or two hour charters to places like Farnborough and Hull.
It had been the RAF's initial training type for many thousands of would be pilots. " simple to build or, if necessary, to repair". A hood over the rear, pupil's, cockpit allowed some instrument flying, with just a basic instrument panel, enough for a pupil to learn, as a beginner. (Another pilot sat in front as a safety pilot.)
Link Training was partially drawing patterns, but leaning how to/ not to stall and spin - and how to recover from both. Ground School took up half of each day and includes " How our parachutes were packed. " ( We sat on them in the Tiger Moth, but did NOT use them !)
Radio and more advanced instrument flying would come later in the course on other aircraft, some with different controls, ( throttle in right hand, stick in the left or even TWO engines and RADIO...!) Or with a much faster T/O, Cruising and landing speeds. For Night flying we used a flare path, with a glide slope pulsating light.
I passed the new examinations (until 1st Apr. it might have been for a "B Licence") and Ministry Flying tests and was issued with a CPL.(but without an I/R.) I had 150.hours (and 20 minutes!) I was employed the following day. Just Joy Riding, but a start. It was PAID experience for me.
Most people had to have their "Holidays at Home", because foreign currency was just not available ( it was limited to £25 pa. each)
My employer might be paid 7/6 by each of my two passengers for a "Quick Flip" or £1/10 for a longer trip. I also did some one or two hour charters to places like Farnborough and Hull.
Last edited by Linktrained; 10th Sep 2013 at 11:51.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still focused on the girl I would choose
Flying requires a balance of various skills. Outstanding strength in one area is nice but unsatisfactory in any area is unacceptable.
Kind of like life.
Here's an opinon from 23+ yrs/12,500+ hrs of FMC use - the guys who complain about the automation and resort to immediate manual operations often show how poor their manual skills are at the same time. Ergo, it wasn't necessarily the automations fault. Automation's not perfect, stay ahead of it and monitor it.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Home soon
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's official. Hand flying skills not that important any more, says Embry Riddle spokesman. See latest AVWEB
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Modern jets, he says, generally are not hand-flown aircraft and some have been designed from the outset to be flown for nearly the entire flight on automation. 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, and arguably more important.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There has been much chat on here about dumbing down of handling skills. The stories of 'the old days' are still relevant. To my knowledge aerodynamics has not changed, nor the law of physics. There may be some whizz bang box of tricks that is supposed to save us from ourselves, but it is still us looking out the window and assessing if all is going well, and if George or ourselves is doing the correct thing to maintain or correct the situation.
In my base training in 1981, B732, it was a requirement to do a minimum of 6 circuits, as now, but 3 had to be at night and the day ones included 1 non glide slope guidance. This is not now the case in both instances. Indeed I know of airlines that did not include night sessions in the TQ sim course until it was suggested by the SFI's as being a good idea. There are other airlines that do not allow landings with out glide slope guidance. In day time this could be VNAVPTH from the FMC, captains only, and at night it must be electronic.
The XAA's have allowed this dumbing down.
What chance have we got if the ruling authorities who are supposed to be the guardians of standards have allowed skills to be so, diluted. Are they fit for purpose as such guardians. If I was a CP or HOT I would set the bar much higher for my troops. Sadly most seem to just toe the required minimum line.
In my base training in 1981, B732, it was a requirement to do a minimum of 6 circuits, as now, but 3 had to be at night and the day ones included 1 non glide slope guidance. This is not now the case in both instances. Indeed I know of airlines that did not include night sessions in the TQ sim course until it was suggested by the SFI's as being a good idea. There are other airlines that do not allow landings with out glide slope guidance. In day time this could be VNAVPTH from the FMC, captains only, and at night it must be electronic.
The XAA's have allowed this dumbing down.
What chance have we got if the ruling authorities who are supposed to be the guardians of standards have allowed skills to be so, diluted. Are they fit for purpose as such guardians. If I was a CP or HOT I would set the bar much higher for my troops. Sadly most seem to just toe the required minimum line.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm still going with the smart girl with lots of other qualities. I never noticed any changes in hand flying or automation except automation throttle movements are like when a person first learns to fly and can't decide what throttle setting is required next so just keeps moving them. Hand flying gives a smoother turn onto the localizer but automation gets the job done too. Just not quite as smooth.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Elsewhere on this forum, I attempted to point out that it is the responsibility of the pilot flying to place (and keep) the airplane at the correct (and desired) condition – meaning the correct (desired) position, attitude, altitude, flight path, and speed (some would describe the combination of altitude, flight path and speed as “energy state,” and that’s perfectly fine). It also happens that most airline pilots have a choice as to how he/she is to accomplish the task of placing and keeping the airplane in that continually safe condition:
1) through the use of the manual controls … for elevator (pitch), ailerons (bank), rudder (yaw), throttles (power), flaps (lift and drag), and/or speed brakes (also lift and drag);… and
2) through the use of the auto-flight controls … which ultimately result in using exactly the same controls (albeit, the flaps and speed brake controls are quite likely to remain manually applied if, or where needed).
I think that many pilots, if not most pilots, have seen a pilot essentially abdicate his/her responsibility as being the “pilot flying” by simply poking “George” in the ribs, and saying “you got it!” Well, “George” (an affectionately neutered term meaning “Auto Pilot”), is very good at doing some things – but the best George can do is what those humans, who designed, assembled, and installed all of George’s parameters, have allowed. That means that whatever it is that George is being asked to do simply must be within George’s capabilities – George doesn’t see, hear, or feel anything. All of George’s inputs are achieved through prior programming – and the term “programming” denotes some level of computation (read that as “computer) … and we all know that computers never make a mistake, they never get tired, they never quit, and they are always correct in what they determine is next in a sequence of events. Yeah … right!
Don’t get me wrong – there is no one who uses and depends on George more than I do. However, I sincerely believe that the pilot flying should always remain the pilot flying – i.e. continue to make all the decisions that are necessary, monitoring the control inputs, and through that vigilance, confirm that what the Autopilot is doing is correct for the situation at hand. Anything less is turning over control of “your” airplane to an inanimate “George” who will do whatever the on-board programming understands with the input it has recognized through the interfacing systems from which flight conditions are monitored and compared to what the control knobs have “asked for.”
I fully agree that a better course of training is required for all pilots who will be provided the latest in computer technology on board their airplane. But that does not, in my view, release those pilots from learning everything they need to know about what, when, where and how, to manually fly that same airplane. Whenever the airplane changes condition, position, attitude, flight path, or energy state, when the pilot flying did not desire that specific change … it is the responsibility of that pilot to use those controls to put the airplane back into a condition, position, attitude, flight path, AND energy state that is appropriate and safe.
As a pilot, you are always at a given point in space … and very likely you are aware of and know specifically where you want the airplane to be in the next second, the next minute, etc., and you have to know what you need to do to ensure that the airplane will really be at, or in, those parameters at that point in time. To do that, you need to be able to recognize your current set of parameters, and know what controls to use, in what order they need to be used, and the magnitude of those control positions that will be necessary to achieve the desired set of parameters. Where “George” only knows what the existing parameters are NOW, where “now” is repeated over and over at whatever speed the computer is operating. “George” reads what parameters have been entered into the Autopilot controls at the same rate. Then, “George” applies the controls to achieve the desired “condition” (which will be in accordance with a set of parameters previously programmed into “his” memory). If YOU allow George to fly YOUR airplane, “he” will do the best he has been programmed to do. If you trust George to do all that – you have a lot more trust in “him” than I … and that is not necessarily a compliment.
So … bottom line … in my not-so-humble opinion ... George is a great aid … but with all “his” greatness, “he” should not, must not, and in my airplane, will not, ever be the pilot flying.
1) through the use of the manual controls … for elevator (pitch), ailerons (bank), rudder (yaw), throttles (power), flaps (lift and drag), and/or speed brakes (also lift and drag);… and
2) through the use of the auto-flight controls … which ultimately result in using exactly the same controls (albeit, the flaps and speed brake controls are quite likely to remain manually applied if, or where needed).
I think that many pilots, if not most pilots, have seen a pilot essentially abdicate his/her responsibility as being the “pilot flying” by simply poking “George” in the ribs, and saying “you got it!” Well, “George” (an affectionately neutered term meaning “Auto Pilot”), is very good at doing some things – but the best George can do is what those humans, who designed, assembled, and installed all of George’s parameters, have allowed. That means that whatever it is that George is being asked to do simply must be within George’s capabilities – George doesn’t see, hear, or feel anything. All of George’s inputs are achieved through prior programming – and the term “programming” denotes some level of computation (read that as “computer) … and we all know that computers never make a mistake, they never get tired, they never quit, and they are always correct in what they determine is next in a sequence of events. Yeah … right!
Don’t get me wrong – there is no one who uses and depends on George more than I do. However, I sincerely believe that the pilot flying should always remain the pilot flying – i.e. continue to make all the decisions that are necessary, monitoring the control inputs, and through that vigilance, confirm that what the Autopilot is doing is correct for the situation at hand. Anything less is turning over control of “your” airplane to an inanimate “George” who will do whatever the on-board programming understands with the input it has recognized through the interfacing systems from which flight conditions are monitored and compared to what the control knobs have “asked for.”
I fully agree that a better course of training is required for all pilots who will be provided the latest in computer technology on board their airplane. But that does not, in my view, release those pilots from learning everything they need to know about what, when, where and how, to manually fly that same airplane. Whenever the airplane changes condition, position, attitude, flight path, or energy state, when the pilot flying did not desire that specific change … it is the responsibility of that pilot to use those controls to put the airplane back into a condition, position, attitude, flight path, AND energy state that is appropriate and safe.
As a pilot, you are always at a given point in space … and very likely you are aware of and know specifically where you want the airplane to be in the next second, the next minute, etc., and you have to know what you need to do to ensure that the airplane will really be at, or in, those parameters at that point in time. To do that, you need to be able to recognize your current set of parameters, and know what controls to use, in what order they need to be used, and the magnitude of those control positions that will be necessary to achieve the desired set of parameters. Where “George” only knows what the existing parameters are NOW, where “now” is repeated over and over at whatever speed the computer is operating. “George” reads what parameters have been entered into the Autopilot controls at the same rate. Then, “George” applies the controls to achieve the desired “condition” (which will be in accordance with a set of parameters previously programmed into “his” memory). If YOU allow George to fly YOUR airplane, “he” will do the best he has been programmed to do. If you trust George to do all that – you have a lot more trust in “him” than I … and that is not necessarily a compliment.
So … bottom line … in my not-so-humble opinion ... George is a great aid … but with all “his” greatness, “he” should not, must not, and in my airplane, will not, ever be the pilot flying.
