Automation Cautionary Tale
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And time for the XAAs or ICAO to say "enough cost cutting already, it's getting dangerous"?
Perhaps, but it will take many committees, many lobbying voices from both sides and many years to conclude.
The change in attitude could happen tomorrow driven by individual airline managements. The 'pilot' members of those managements will need to flight their corner against the 'budget & profit brigade'. Given their historical performance of capitulating to share options and bonuses and thus relinquishing the reins of aviating culture within the airline I doubt it will happen. There are many who say they have not had a fatal problem (yet) with their auto-dependancy culture, so why change. Indeed there are some who have put manual flying even more in the dark cellar.
Perhaps, but it will take many committees, many lobbying voices from both sides and many years to conclude.
The change in attitude could happen tomorrow driven by individual airline managements. The 'pilot' members of those managements will need to flight their corner against the 'budget & profit brigade'. Given their historical performance of capitulating to share options and bonuses and thus relinquishing the reins of aviating culture within the airline I doubt it will happen. There are many who say they have not had a fatal problem (yet) with their auto-dependancy culture, so why change. Indeed there are some who have put manual flying even more in the dark cellar.
In terms of threat and error management, hand flying an aircraft for long periods in busy airspace increases the potential for making errors
Credit must be given for a common sense approach to hand flying practice on line. Unfortunately it becomes a vicious circle where, regardless of company rules, there are captains so apprehensive of switching off the automatic pilot or flight director even if conditions are fine, that they refuse to allow their co-pilot permission to keep their hand in.
Unfortunately it becomes a vicious circle where, regardless of company rules, there are captains so apprehensive of switching off the automatic pilot or flight director even if conditions are fine, that they refuse to allow their co-pilot permission to keep their hand in.
At the moment automation is used to a tremendous extent. Unfortunately, most of that automation relies on things external to the aircraft; GPS satellites, ILS transmitters, etc. None of those things supply a guaranteed service. When they go wrong, there's no guaranteed redundancy. And when they go wrong everybody is affected, not just a single aircraft.
That's why we have pilots in the front seats, but it's of little value unless they are proficient at flying and landing an aircraft with nothing but the resources of their own aircraft to help them. After all, it's for this very reason the aircraft themselves are carefully designed to have appropriate levels of redundancy.
A pilot flying a modern airliner (which presumably still has INS these days?) and with reasonable planning and meteorological data ought to be able to fly and land their aircraft somewhere without needing reception of any radio signal in any of the aircraft's systems. That's the basic essence of the aviation world's infrastructure and aircraft safety specification. Of course, that does not mean pilots have to do it that way every time, but they should have that ability.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Msb. That is the best focused point of view that the enlightened have iterated on here many times. The frustration is that it is being ignored. Those captains who are nervous at F/O's 'having a go' are of that frame of mind because they can not do it themselves. They can neither demonstrate the art nor monitor someone else. The new breed of captains, being promoted with half the experience of previous generations, have never learnt the art themselves. They then become sim instructors and don't know how to do it, nor can they demonstrate it on line. The skill spiral is ever downwards and incestuously self propagating. It is an appalling state of affairs.
It has come about via various factors.
1. The a/c are more sophisticated. Better autopilots; more modes; better displays; LNAV/VNAV has reduced mental calculation & monitoring.
2. Better ATC with more radar and more active control due to traffic density.
3. More ILS approaches, and if not available then LNAV/VNAV or RNAV profiles. Pilot judgement much diluted.
4. OFDM parameters & limits being expanded and tightened all the time. Pilots are scared of any infringement.
5. Active discouragement by management.
6. Lack of in-depth basic training of the basics of manual flying; and then lack of line practice. All that is done is the mandatory base training.
7. Captains being created with 1/2 the experience of yester-year and lacking the skills to pass on to the apprentices.
It has astonished, and saddened, me to experience the demise in basic piloting skills over 30 years. What I took for granted as the norm has become something of a rare & threatened species. Much of that root cause can be found outside the flight deck. I'm sure most cadets didn't join up to be button pushers, but they have had it been beaten into them and had their Biggles dreams curtailed.
It's a great deal to change: doing a 180 in a supertanker comes to mind. Someone has to decide to turn the wheel and then wait a very long time for the effect to be seen.
It has come about via various factors.
1. The a/c are more sophisticated. Better autopilots; more modes; better displays; LNAV/VNAV has reduced mental calculation & monitoring.
2. Better ATC with more radar and more active control due to traffic density.
3. More ILS approaches, and if not available then LNAV/VNAV or RNAV profiles. Pilot judgement much diluted.
4. OFDM parameters & limits being expanded and tightened all the time. Pilots are scared of any infringement.
5. Active discouragement by management.
6. Lack of in-depth basic training of the basics of manual flying; and then lack of line practice. All that is done is the mandatory base training.
7. Captains being created with 1/2 the experience of yester-year and lacking the skills to pass on to the apprentices.
It has astonished, and saddened, me to experience the demise in basic piloting skills over 30 years. What I took for granted as the norm has become something of a rare & threatened species. Much of that root cause can be found outside the flight deck. I'm sure most cadets didn't join up to be button pushers, but they have had it been beaten into them and had their Biggles dreams curtailed.
It's a great deal to change: doing a 180 in a supertanker comes to mind. Someone has to decide to turn the wheel and then wait a very long time for the effect to be seen.
Last edited by RAT 5; 28th Feb 2016 at 12:30.
I have spent a lifetime developing a range of specialised radio systems, and that has taught me that radio is too vulnerable to be completely relied upon.
It horrifies me when I see systems where people have assumed it is dependable. It isn't. Even if you duplicate equipment there is only one spectrum, and the behaviour of that is out of the system designer's control.
I see an increasing reliance on automation in aviation as increasing dependency on the associated radio systems and everything that lies behind them. Yet I hear nothing about making them more reliable. How can the regulators permit that!?!?
And look what can happen when they're not working (SFO?).
Of course I can't put any numbers to reliability, etc. This kind of trend changes risk characteristics. Instead of having airliners crash now and then, we now have a situation where they seemingly crash less often. However a few small failures or interference guarantees that lots will be at severe risk of crashing all on the same day.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We used to do a "Silver Wing" service between Manston and Le Touquet, which may have been a little tight for our Hermes, so only Captains could land there. ( There was no technical information, unless it was kept in the London Office.)
The return flight was flown by the F/O, operating as far as it was possible as a One Man Band, plus the essential rearward facing F/E.
Many frequency changes and ATC calls and passenger sight seeing comments, Approach and Landing Checks, ending with a with a Practice Emergency GCA to touch down made a busy fifteen and a half minutes flight time. (All monitored by the Captain, RHS.)
Some years later I had to do much the same thing for real, into a busy Terminal, following a "F/O failure". ( He got better !)
Simulators were not available, then.
(At Manston we could watch the Decca Navigator plot which side of the wide R/W we were on, on the charts, which we inked to gain confidence. Round Basle the pen would tend to wander a bit but stayed inside the Airway.)
LT
The return flight was flown by the F/O, operating as far as it was possible as a One Man Band, plus the essential rearward facing F/E.
Many frequency changes and ATC calls and passenger sight seeing comments, Approach and Landing Checks, ending with a with a Practice Emergency GCA to touch down made a busy fifteen and a half minutes flight time. (All monitored by the Captain, RHS.)
Some years later I had to do much the same thing for real, into a busy Terminal, following a "F/O failure". ( He got better !)
Simulators were not available, then.
(At Manston we could watch the Decca Navigator plot which side of the wide R/W we were on, on the charts, which we inked to gain confidence. Round Basle the pen would tend to wander a bit but stayed inside the Airway.)
LT
Last edited by Linktrained; 28th Feb 2016 at 23:28. Reason: bits
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to #28
The Silver Wing service took coach loads of passengers from London (Victoria) to Manston and further coaches to Paris etc. For some it may have been an alternative to a "joy ride" as a first flight. And in a proper 4-engined airliner, too !
Thr Hermes A/P, if used, would have had the rudder channel switched off, otherwise one got a "fish-tail" effect - side to side. Of course the GCA was fully manual from 1500ft.
The later flight mentioned, into a busy terminal, made use of that A/P height and speed locks with the F/E adjusting power to alternately obtain the other factor, without words of command. This was to reduce the amount of "verbal clutter" which might have obscured some ATC Commands. It seemed to work quite well.
LT
The Silver Wing service took coach loads of passengers from London (Victoria) to Manston and further coaches to Paris etc. For some it may have been an alternative to a "joy ride" as a first flight. And in a proper 4-engined airliner, too !
Thr Hermes A/P, if used, would have had the rudder channel switched off, otherwise one got a "fish-tail" effect - side to side. Of course the GCA was fully manual from 1500ft.
The later flight mentioned, into a busy terminal, made use of that A/P height and speed locks with the F/E adjusting power to alternately obtain the other factor, without words of command. This was to reduce the amount of "verbal clutter" which might have obscured some ATC Commands. It seemed to work quite well.
LT
Last edited by Linktrained; 29th Feb 2016 at 23:01. Reason: Bits
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having flown for the Lidl-coloured loco, and moved on to a flag carrier I don't believe that the modern flight deck is solely responsible. Equally, and maybe even more guilty is the company culture and strict SOP. We have seen many accidents the last few years occurred due to poor flying skills. Yet the airlines discourage and prohibits its pilots to fly manually/visually/raw data.
My previous "employer" lead by that ghastly chief pilot, was not so bad at a time. Not being one of those famous aces you hear so much about, I still managed to manually fly full IFR procedures without the use of those fancy-coloured Flight Suggestors and fly a decent visual approach not hurting anyone. Sometimes not even my own pride.
Even though the captains rarely (especially the British ones) did the same I never met any objections flying manually for take off and landing below 10 000'. Nowadays, they prohibit raw data flying. A visual approach has to be created in the box and flown in full magenta mode. Latest from the management is to even limit the use of other A/P-modes than the most magenta ones, eg not climb in level change or God forbid, vertical speed.
At my current company, we are free to fly the aircraft basically within the limitations of the manufactor. We don't get harassed and threatened by the management. If we make a mistake, we say so and explain why this happened. With this company culture, people utilize the full use of automation when appropriate, but don't hesitate to disengage everything and fly a tight, stable visual approach when needed. I can see people are much more comfortable in their role, makes better decisions and in the end leading to a better job being done.
It's not the automation that is the problem, it's how we use and not use it that is. And a pilot under stress, afraid of making mistakes and in doubt if he/she can do what he/she thinks is the best move at the time can be a dangerous pilot if bad luck strikes.
Just my experience.
My previous "employer" lead by that ghastly chief pilot, was not so bad at a time. Not being one of those famous aces you hear so much about, I still managed to manually fly full IFR procedures without the use of those fancy-coloured Flight Suggestors and fly a decent visual approach not hurting anyone. Sometimes not even my own pride.
Even though the captains rarely (especially the British ones) did the same I never met any objections flying manually for take off and landing below 10 000'. Nowadays, they prohibit raw data flying. A visual approach has to be created in the box and flown in full magenta mode. Latest from the management is to even limit the use of other A/P-modes than the most magenta ones, eg not climb in level change or God forbid, vertical speed.
At my current company, we are free to fly the aircraft basically within the limitations of the manufactor. We don't get harassed and threatened by the management. If we make a mistake, we say so and explain why this happened. With this company culture, people utilize the full use of automation when appropriate, but don't hesitate to disengage everything and fly a tight, stable visual approach when needed. I can see people are much more comfortable in their role, makes better decisions and in the end leading to a better job being done.
It's not the automation that is the problem, it's how we use and not use it that is. And a pilot under stress, afraid of making mistakes and in doubt if he/she can do what he/she thinks is the best move at the time can be a dangerous pilot if bad luck strikes.
Just my experience.
How many minutes manual flying per sector
Will vary from country to country, and from airline to airline.
But I would be interested in people's thoughts how little time was spent flying manually.
But I would be interested in people's thoughts how little time was spent flying manually.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've been following this thread since it opened, and it was with some frustration that I realised that I was flying with an automation dependent captain the other day.
My sector, climbing in IMC, he insists that I not turn off the FD because of the "bad weather". Shortly thereafter, he tells me to turn on the AP. Silky smooth day, getting vectors, and he considers IMC "bad weather"...
My sector, climbing in IMC, he insists that I not turn off the FD because of the "bad weather". Shortly thereafter, he tells me to turn on the AP. Silky smooth day, getting vectors, and he considers IMC "bad weather"...
Perhaps it's a generational thing too. We oldsters would get a reroute from ATC, look at our en route chart and tweak the heading bug appropriately, knowing that refinement would be possible soon afterwards. By contrast, the youngsters would reach for the FMC as the first response.
Fine weather, approaching destination, little traffic. You announce to the FO that you'll knock out the automatics and F/D and fly a manual circuit and approach using the stopwatch. Look of horror from the RHS! 'This old fart doesn't know how to program the FMC!'
Again, fine weather, approaching destination, little traffic. It's the FO's leg so you don't interfere. He's constructed the approach in the FMC - fair enough, you think - it's his choice. Downwind leg - still in auto, but I expect he'll knock it out soon. Base leg - doesn't he want to have a go himself? On final - at 500 feet he announces he's disengaging. What a waste! you think.
Fine weather, approaching destination, little traffic. You announce to the FO that you'll knock out the automatics and F/D and fly a manual circuit and approach using the stopwatch. Look of horror from the RHS! 'This old fart doesn't know how to program the FMC!'
Again, fine weather, approaching destination, little traffic. It's the FO's leg so you don't interfere. He's constructed the approach in the FMC - fair enough, you think - it's his choice. Downwind leg - still in auto, but I expect he'll knock it out soon. Base leg - doesn't he want to have a go himself? On final - at 500 feet he announces he's disengaging. What a waste! you think.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Used to fly B757 with many youngsters. This was in the day when we made many visual approaches, Greek islands etc. and at home base, a major hub. Often, when asking "which sector would you like?" the reply was, "it's looks sporting back here, so I'll take the return leg." Sporting meant low cloud/vis or a breezy cross wind.
AP firmly engaged until DA +100'. Hm????
AP firmly engaged until DA +100'. Hm????
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I just right seated for a young man today on a DA50EX type ride in the sim.
Fly to 10,000 ft., autopilot off, steep turns, 3 stalls, unusual attitudes, two hand flown approaches, one precision, one non precision, hand flown engine out missed approach, return for a hand flown approach, the two engine out visual hand flown.
The kid did great and had exceptional situation awareness and skills beyond his years. It comes down to how you train, training philosophy dictated by real pilots in management, not phucking bean counters...
"just sayin' "
ffastbrake DFW
Fly to 10,000 ft., autopilot off, steep turns, 3 stalls, unusual attitudes, two hand flown approaches, one precision, one non precision, hand flown engine out missed approach, return for a hand flown approach, the two engine out visual hand flown.
The kid did great and had exceptional situation awareness and skills beyond his years. It comes down to how you train, training philosophy dictated by real pilots in management, not phucking bean counters...
"just sayin' "
ffastbrake DFW
I've been following this thread since it opened, and it was with some frustration that I realised that I was flying with an automation dependent captain the other day.
I have often wondered that if you have been drilled right from the start of your airline career as a 200 hour cadet pilot, to make full use of the automatics in the Airbus/737 et al, does that necessarily mean you are brain-washed by default into automation addiction or dependence?
I fear there is a good chance that is the case.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Wor Yerm
Age: 68
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is right and who is wrong in this debate? Unfortunately, that will only be determined by those judging our industry by the number of smoking holes that can be attributed to lack of basic flying ability. We are not killing enough to change the way we do things. Airlines enforcing strict SOPs (designed almost exclusively for automatic flight) and who punish FDM deviants will crow on about how safe they are because their safety record is impeccable (so far). And because modern standards are so low nearly every airline, including the really gash operators, can show that what they are doing works. So if its not broke... And whether or not our current approach to automation is right or not will depend on how many we think we are going to kill in the future. Unfortunately, airlines are not required to use crystal balls and as they believe nothing is wrong...
Also airports and government agencies have become part of the problem. Like Captain Nervous, they want to control everything. A worthwhile visual approach is almost a thing of the past. It's forbidden! They want to make sure the same houses are hit with the noise of every approaching aircraft on every single flight. Quite what these citizens have done to deserve this I'm not sure. As a result, there is little to be saved (time or money) in flying a visual approach. So most do not.
In general I think we've become our own worst enemies. We have improved to the point where the world believes our skills we can be replaced by automation, procedures and rules. Only when we have gone too far will this miss-truth become apparent.
Personally I fly manually as much as I can. But out of consideration for my colleagues I choose my moments. The aircraft's SOPs are not hand flying friendly and there is too much mouth music. This practice is just for me and I do it to keep current. I might even need it one day.
Finally, I believe it would be criminal if there was any loss of life due to a crew's inability to fly an aircraft. But proving this beyond doubt might be a difficult thing to do. And even if you could, it's not until CEOs can be held criminally liable and possibly end up in prison that things will ever change.
PM
Also airports and government agencies have become part of the problem. Like Captain Nervous, they want to control everything. A worthwhile visual approach is almost a thing of the past. It's forbidden! They want to make sure the same houses are hit with the noise of every approaching aircraft on every single flight. Quite what these citizens have done to deserve this I'm not sure. As a result, there is little to be saved (time or money) in flying a visual approach. So most do not.
In general I think we've become our own worst enemies. We have improved to the point where the world believes our skills we can be replaced by automation, procedures and rules. Only when we have gone too far will this miss-truth become apparent.
Personally I fly manually as much as I can. But out of consideration for my colleagues I choose my moments. The aircraft's SOPs are not hand flying friendly and there is too much mouth music. This practice is just for me and I do it to keep current. I might even need it one day.
Finally, I believe it would be criminal if there was any loss of life due to a crew's inability to fly an aircraft. But proving this beyond doubt might be a difficult thing to do. And even if you could, it's not until CEOs can be held criminally liable and possibly end up in prison that things will ever change.
PM
I have often wondered that if you have been drilled right from the start of your airline career as a 200 hour cadet pilot, to make full use of the automatics in the Airbus/737 et al, does that necessarily mean you are brain-washed by default into automation addiction or dependence?
I fear there is a good chance that is the case.
I fear there is a good chance that is the case.
Bear in mind that (1) this was pre CRM-training days, but also (2) we flew ALL sectors as Pilot-in-charge Monitored Approaches. Many of the Captains I flew with back then took the view that just about the ONLY important thing they could rely on us doing properly was fly instrument approaches to DH and go around, which they knew because we had an Instrument Rating that proved it.
So they were happy to get us to hand fly in better weather, either with Flight Directors or raw data, and encouraged us to go as far down as possible on instruments, because they knew that they'd be taking control back anyway to do the landing, and would simply do so earlier if we screwed it up. I think we actually got pretty sharp at it, as well as the auto stuff, because obviously we were pretty keen! And once they were happy to give us takeoffs and landings, the Captains would similarly practice hand-flying if they wanted to, on the F/O legs where we were "in charge" and doing the takeoff and landing.
A big issue in my mind is that almost everyone sees it as "all or nothing". Hand-flying can easily demand more (or a different type of) concentration than using automatics and it does generally raise workload. So managements inevitably will see it as a significant reduction in safety margins during traditional PF/PM operations, where the person with the high workload is also responsible for the overall safety of the flight (tactical decision-making etc).
But if you split the tasks so the tactical decisions are NOT going to be made by the pilot flying, there is much less impact on safety margins, especially if you're doing it in conditions when there aren't any significant threats. That way, if managements provide suitable guidance and limitations, they can let Captains use some discretion and judgement on the day, which will improve long term safety (over years) without lowering short-term (individual flight) safety.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they were happy to get us to hand fly in better weather, either with Flight Directors or raw data, and encouraged us to go as far down as possible on instruments,
Interesting comment from old pre-BA days. The debate is a little wider; it touches on guys not being able to do MK.1 visual approaches. Manual flying, under radar or LNAV/VNAV, FD or raw data should not be difficult. You follow you do not decide. Mk.1 visual you decide as well. That's a big part of the skill that is vanishing.
Interesting comment from old pre-BA days. The debate is a little wider; it touches on guys not being able to do MK.1 visual approaches. Manual flying, under radar or LNAV/VNAV, FD or raw data should not be difficult. You follow you do not decide. Mk.1 visual you decide as well. That's a big part of the skill that is vanishing.
Bill Brown, famed Flight Engineer on a BA Concorde came up with a very prophetic thought about how civil aviation would change.
Watch the following, at around about 1:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH_S...g#t=109.560578
Watch the following, at around about 1:27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH_S...g#t=109.560578
Wouldn't disagree with you, RAT5 - my comment was simply aimed at starting the process where it might get most traction, which is simply try clicking the autopilot off !
Last edited by slast; 8th Mar 2016 at 10:03.