Preventing the loss of pure flying skills in jet transport aircraft.
Karunch
Years back when our rosters were "lighter" and aviation/cost of living in general in the SE UK wasnt quite so expensive as it is now a lot of my more senior colleagues did exactly what you describe (well it was that or sail the yacht
).... Nowadays it's quite rare to come across anyone who does much if any SE flying ( aside from a few part timers).
As you say, if such flying is valuable then it needs the employers and regulators to buy into it.... what chance that!
Years back when our rosters were "lighter" and aviation/cost of living in general in the SE UK wasnt quite so expensive as it is now a lot of my more senior colleagues did exactly what you describe (well it was that or sail the yacht
).... Nowadays it's quite rare to come across anyone who does much if any SE flying ( aside from a few part timers).As you say, if such flying is valuable then it needs the employers and regulators to buy into it.... what chance that!
Are you suggesting 6 monthly base training.
Base training? Do you mean in the real aeroplane? Where was that suggested in the discussion? The suggestions are all about additional emphasis on non-automatics practical handling practice during simulator training
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
crosswinds = LBA, BHX, AMS (often) etc.
night approaches to black hole aerodromes,= Corfu (Southerly) Thessaloniki, Kos, etc.
short runways & circling approaches= Calvi, Corfu, Samos, Kos (southerly), CIA, etc.
combined give confidence in any manual handling required in an airline environment.
Now if I could only get my employer to directly sponsor it.
In my past life it was called line flying everyday.
night approaches to black hole aerodromes,= Corfu (Southerly) Thessaloniki, Kos, etc.
short runways & circling approaches= Calvi, Corfu, Samos, Kos (southerly), CIA, etc.
combined give confidence in any manual handling required in an airline environment.
Now if I could only get my employer to directly sponsor it.
In my past life it was called line flying everyday.
The suggestions are all about additional emphasis on non-automatics practical handling practice during simulator training
For some, they were happy to landing with excessive drift still applied claiming the 737 was up to it. The true answer was they did not have the basic handling ability possibly because of lack of opportunity to get crosswind landings. Either the captain always did the crosswind landing because he didn't trust his F/O to land it safely without squealing of tortured tyres. Or the co-pilot was restricted by company regulations to a maximum crosswind of 15 knots or something like that.
This surely is where proper simulator training comes into its own especially as crosswind landings take real skill to attain perfection.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem is the way avionics are made. Boeing and Airbus doesn't have an HSI mode which supports FMS navigation, so once you're given direct to some fix, you've got to have the FD on. In my old airplane, the FMS could drive the CDI, and it was not unusual to hand fly an RNAV SID/STAR or approach. The only time you really get to practice hand flying without the FD nowadays, is while you're getting vectored, or on an approach. At least once a week, I try and turn off the FD/AT and do the approach raw data. Day/night/VMC/IMC shouldn't matter.
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least once a week, I try and turn off the FD/AT and do the approach raw data. Day/night/VMC/IMC shouldn't matter.
Lucky man. There are TM airlines where this is forbidden; and yes, it does say in their Ops Manual that manual flying is allowed in suitable circumstances. Say one thing do another.
Lucky man. There are TM airlines where this is forbidden; and yes, it does say in their Ops Manual that manual flying is allowed in suitable circumstances. Say one thing do another.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lucky man. There are TM airlines where this is forbidden; and yes, it does say in their Ops Manual that manual flying is allowed in suitable circumstances. Say one thing do another.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing and Airbus doesn't have an HSI mode which supports FMS navigation
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even without an FMS-slaved HSI you can fly direct to a waypoint by flying the track shown on the ND, which is how I do it if I want to fly raw data. Only had one embarrassing comment from ATC on the quality of my navigation... ;-)
The OP asks about 'pure' flying skills; I wonder if there is any such thing - manual flight without awareness, decision making, etc.
Also the fallacy that the use of automation 'causes' loss of skill, and that then 'causes' accidents. There is little evidence of either. Some accident reports cite loss of skill / loss of control, yet often overlook that the pilots had not understood the situation or had not been trained for such events.
Perhaps the discussion might consider:-
"Hand-eye skills (instrument scanning and manual control), if initially well learned, are reasonably well retained after prolonged use of automation.
Cognitive skills, such as navigation and failure recognition and diagnosis, are prone to forgetting and may depdend on the extent to which pilots follow along when automation is used to fly the aircraft." http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/56/8/1506.full.pdf
How can we sharpen- retain cognitive skills?
Also the fallacy that the use of automation 'causes' loss of skill, and that then 'causes' accidents. There is little evidence of either. Some accident reports cite loss of skill / loss of control, yet often overlook that the pilots had not understood the situation or had not been trained for such events.
Perhaps the discussion might consider:-
"Hand-eye skills (instrument scanning and manual control), if initially well learned, are reasonably well retained after prolonged use of automation.
Cognitive skills, such as navigation and failure recognition and diagnosis, are prone to forgetting and may depdend on the extent to which pilots follow along when automation is used to fly the aircraft." http://hfs.sagepub.com/content/56/8/1506.full.pdf
How can we sharpen- retain cognitive skills?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The thing that gets me in some airlines is their confusing attitude. Cadet selection process is raw data flying, and mini IR test. Base training is no FD flying to a pure visual with timing guidance to roll out on finals at 3nm. These are the skills required to join the lofty ranks of line pilots; well line training anyway. On the line these skills and attributes are forbidden. Autopilot, FD, auto throttle, LNAV/VNAV circuits, SOP's when to scratch your nose, etc. One wonders why use a selection process for a pilot and then create a trained monkey?
And then their Op's manual mentioned they encourage pilots to practice their skills when appropriate. Their XAA is having wooled pulled over their rose tinted glasses.
And then their Op's manual mentioned they encourage pilots to practice their skills when appropriate. Their XAA is having wooled pulled over their rose tinted glasses.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems a weird way to go about business, RAT5. Happily i never encountered that, the airlines i have flown in encouraged and still do encourage us to fly manually on the line. Raw data, or at least Flight Director off flight without autopilot and autothrust is a normal thing to do.
Now, it is very easy to get lazy and leave all that nice stuff in, and many do that. But those that want to fly the damn thing without all the trickery can certainly do so. On the 737 i flew at least 50% of all my approaches "raw data", usually out of something like FL200, something that was required since my first linetraining flight. On the bus i am so far kinda lazy and only fly a third of my approaches raw data, but i'm working on that.
Sometimes it seems on here that this "maximum use of automatics at all times" is an attitude mostly found in the anglo-saxon influenced world (probably not the US though) and asia. But i might be wrong there. Central Europe seems to be wired a bit differently.
Now, it is very easy to get lazy and leave all that nice stuff in, and many do that. But those that want to fly the damn thing without all the trickery can certainly do so. On the 737 i flew at least 50% of all my approaches "raw data", usually out of something like FL200, something that was required since my first linetraining flight. On the bus i am so far kinda lazy and only fly a third of my approaches raw data, but i'm working on that.
Sometimes it seems on here that this "maximum use of automatics at all times" is an attitude mostly found in the anglo-saxon influenced world (probably not the US though) and asia. But i might be wrong there. Central Europe seems to be wired a bit differently.
Clearly i sit further back than you guys but if I might make an observation.
Modern automation has no doubt made flying 'easier' and less prone to individual pilot skill levels. Obverlla thats probably a good thing and has no doubt, through things like alpha protection, CATIII autoland prevented a significant number of accidents.
All this can easily be deduced by looking at overall accident statistics and how they have drastically reduced. Add savings on pilot training and recurrency training and theyare attractive prospects for corporate managements.
However we seem in the last year of two to have got to a point where the automatics safety factor is virtually taken for granted-it is not the improvement factor any more it is the new norm. As a consequence little publicity internally or externally appears to be given to situations where autoflight or simialr 'saves the day.
On the contrary side however among the much reducded number of accidents is a much increased number of accidents rseulting from situations that years ago just would never have happened, like stalling the plane which lets face it is pilotign 101.. The skills and airmanship with junior pilots learning on the job doing things like running round the Bovingdon hold for LHR in bad weather after an overnight from USA in a Conway engined 707 ,for instance meant that new FOs really did learn the hard way as part of the job because their was no alternative , no magenta line and this stuff happened on a daily basis
Move along to 2016 and no one has the opportunity to learn the 'hard way' because no one operates heavy underpowered jets with raw data on round guages . So when something unusual crops up those once vital skills in daily use are no longer there and we get events like the Colgan crash in Buffalo, Asiana at SFO and AF 447 .
The problem the pilot community have is balancing the two scenarios , do automatics save more lives than they cost as a result of degraded skills- and therefore save more money. You all know which choice your airline will make if the answer is yes. So how do you make a case for more manual flying in order to gain and keep current skills that may never be used or may one dark dirty night save a couple of hundred lives and a couple of hundred million dollars.
It would seem to me that someone (BALPA?IFALPA) needs to put together a proper analysis of recent accidents and make the case that in todays world the majority of accidents are caused no so much by pilot error as inadequate piloting and if that can clearly be shown then airlines and regulators do face a compulsion to do something since lawyers, media and insurers do not look kindly on people who overlook evident risks.
Anyway excuse me butting in, I have every sympathy with you as it is not just in the pilot world where this sort of thing happens, the number of times experience and judgement have been overturned by a spreadsheet or power point is beyond count in my (telecommunications) world but when something goes wrong in the middle of the night and they have to dig out aged Fred the engineer or young Jack the nerdy one who understands it all, these guys do have the luxury or time and safe environments to figure out the fix and maybe experiment a bit-you guys don't and people die as a result
Modern automation has no doubt made flying 'easier' and less prone to individual pilot skill levels. Obverlla thats probably a good thing and has no doubt, through things like alpha protection, CATIII autoland prevented a significant number of accidents.
All this can easily be deduced by looking at overall accident statistics and how they have drastically reduced. Add savings on pilot training and recurrency training and theyare attractive prospects for corporate managements.
However we seem in the last year of two to have got to a point where the automatics safety factor is virtually taken for granted-it is not the improvement factor any more it is the new norm. As a consequence little publicity internally or externally appears to be given to situations where autoflight or simialr 'saves the day.
On the contrary side however among the much reducded number of accidents is a much increased number of accidents rseulting from situations that years ago just would never have happened, like stalling the plane which lets face it is pilotign 101.. The skills and airmanship with junior pilots learning on the job doing things like running round the Bovingdon hold for LHR in bad weather after an overnight from USA in a Conway engined 707 ,for instance meant that new FOs really did learn the hard way as part of the job because their was no alternative , no magenta line and this stuff happened on a daily basis
Move along to 2016 and no one has the opportunity to learn the 'hard way' because no one operates heavy underpowered jets with raw data on round guages . So when something unusual crops up those once vital skills in daily use are no longer there and we get events like the Colgan crash in Buffalo, Asiana at SFO and AF 447 .
The problem the pilot community have is balancing the two scenarios , do automatics save more lives than they cost as a result of degraded skills- and therefore save more money. You all know which choice your airline will make if the answer is yes. So how do you make a case for more manual flying in order to gain and keep current skills that may never be used or may one dark dirty night save a couple of hundred lives and a couple of hundred million dollars.
It would seem to me that someone (BALPA?IFALPA) needs to put together a proper analysis of recent accidents and make the case that in todays world the majority of accidents are caused no so much by pilot error as inadequate piloting and if that can clearly be shown then airlines and regulators do face a compulsion to do something since lawyers, media and insurers do not look kindly on people who overlook evident risks.
Anyway excuse me butting in, I have every sympathy with you as it is not just in the pilot world where this sort of thing happens, the number of times experience and judgement have been overturned by a spreadsheet or power point is beyond count in my (telecommunications) world but when something goes wrong in the middle of the night and they have to dig out aged Fred the engineer or young Jack the nerdy one who understands it all, these guys do have the luxury or time and safe environments to figure out the fix and maybe experiment a bit-you guys don't and people die as a result
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: last time I looked I was still here.
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pax B: in many way you are correct. It is a cost/risk analysis situation. I am alway amazed at the reaction of authorities, & the public, to life taking events. A train smash, an a/c smash, a .....??????? Let us not let it happen again. Design it out. Enforce safety procedures; etc. etc. Then we hear, quietly, that there are so many XYZ deaths per year from problems in hospitals; there are so many deaths on the roads; there are so many deaths from foods; were are so many deaths from............
Reaction? not a lot because the publicity and shock value from the media is not there. 5 a/c crashes per year in one EU country is less than unnecessary hospital deaths and/or car deaths. Is there a cry of outrage for better driving standards or medical standards?
I'm with the 'better piloting skills' brigade because I was one. The managers/accountants/shareholder & the public? I wonder? Cynical, pessimistic, realistic. I'll let you decide.
Meanwhile the manufacturers are trying to design out the errors with more back-ups and fail-safe systems. Better pilots are not required because the a/c can not go wrong....go wrong....go wrong.....Ooops!
Reaction? not a lot because the publicity and shock value from the media is not there. 5 a/c crashes per year in one EU country is less than unnecessary hospital deaths and/or car deaths. Is there a cry of outrage for better driving standards or medical standards?
I'm with the 'better piloting skills' brigade because I was one. The managers/accountants/shareholder & the public? I wonder? Cynical, pessimistic, realistic. I'll let you decide.
Meanwhile the manufacturers are trying to design out the errors with more back-ups and fail-safe systems. Better pilots are not required because the a/c can not go wrong....go wrong....go wrong.....Ooops!
RAT 5
i agree with your comments - the point Iwas trying to make , as you allude to , is what happens when the automatics go wrong or mislead the crew , perhaps compounded by fatigue etc.
the challenge is to show that while overall automatics have brought great benefits in safety terms , an unintended consequence has put resulting poor basic flying skills right at the top of accident causes and as such it is negligent on the part of corporations to ignore it
i agree with your comments - the point Iwas trying to make , as you allude to , is what happens when the automatics go wrong or mislead the crew , perhaps compounded by fatigue etc.
the challenge is to show that while overall automatics have brought great benefits in safety terms , an unintended consequence has put resulting poor basic flying skills right at the top of accident causes and as such it is negligent on the part of corporations to ignore it
Indelible in my mind is reading the accident report CVR where a Boeing 737 took off at night somewhere in the Middle East and the captain asked his first officer to engage the autopilot. I think the F/O replied along the lines "God Willing - autopilot engaged" But he had not engaged the autopilot because the captain still had pressure on the control wheel preventing the AP from engaging. All the F/O was apparently doing was reading back the captain's command to engage the AP.
Eventually the 737 wandered around the night sky in ever increasing angles of bank until it was in a seriously unusual attitude because no one was flying it. The absolutely horrifying part then started as the aircraft went into a steep spiral with the captain shouting desperately "Engage the Auto-pilot - engage the autopilot! Then oblivion...
That particular event and there are many others similar, if one cares to trawl through ICAO accident reports involving loss of control in IMC and that includes more recently, straight forward low altitude go arounds in IMC, demonstrates a fundamental flaw in recurrent simulator training starting from the first type rating.
That flaw is so easily fixed by company initiative in designing the simulator training syllabus to accent manual flying skills instead of button pressing ad nauseum. If the crew lack the ability to seamlessly switch from autopilot controlled flight to manually controlled flight without drama, then again this reflects adversely on their training in the simulator. I am sure every airline management work on the theory that accidents only happen to other operators so no need to worry about simulator training beyond regulatory box ticking.
As one Boeing Seattle 787 test pilot told a Boeing 787 simulator instructor "We designed the 787 around the basis it will be flown by incompetent pilots." What an indictment on the quality of some airline crews flying jet transports.
Eventually the 737 wandered around the night sky in ever increasing angles of bank until it was in a seriously unusual attitude because no one was flying it. The absolutely horrifying part then started as the aircraft went into a steep spiral with the captain shouting desperately "Engage the Auto-pilot - engage the autopilot! Then oblivion...
That particular event and there are many others similar, if one cares to trawl through ICAO accident reports involving loss of control in IMC and that includes more recently, straight forward low altitude go arounds in IMC, demonstrates a fundamental flaw in recurrent simulator training starting from the first type rating.
That flaw is so easily fixed by company initiative in designing the simulator training syllabus to accent manual flying skills instead of button pressing ad nauseum. If the crew lack the ability to seamlessly switch from autopilot controlled flight to manually controlled flight without drama, then again this reflects adversely on their training in the simulator. I am sure every airline management work on the theory that accidents only happen to other operators so no need to worry about simulator training beyond regulatory box ticking.
As one Boeing Seattle 787 test pilot told a Boeing 787 simulator instructor "We designed the 787 around the basis it will be flown by incompetent pilots." What an indictment on the quality of some airline crews flying jet transports.
That flaw is so easily fixed by company initiative in designing the simulator training syllabus to accent manual flying skills instead of button pressing ad nauseum.
I don't know how the trainers that write our "scripts" manage to squeeze everything into the sessions, but they do.
TBH unless some of the recurrent content goes or is reduced in frequency you're going to need more expensive sim time to allow for a meaningful amount of handling practise ( such scannexs, etc) every 6 months...
What are the chances of that?
Last edited by wiggy; 1st Jun 2016 at 06:50.
'As one Boeing Seattle 787 test pilot told a Boeing 787 simulator instructor "We designed the 787 around the basis it will be flown by incompetent pilots." What an indictment on the quality of some airline crews flying jet transports. '
Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.
In fact Boeing has taken the opposite tack from AB who have tried
desperately to 'Pilot Proof' their aircraft by taking them out of the loop
as much as possible.
Boeing recognizes that Pilots should always have the final say as far as
control of the aircraft is concerned and you can't do that with hard limits.
Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.
In fact Boeing has taken the opposite tack from AB who have tried
desperately to 'Pilot Proof' their aircraft by taking them out of the loop
as much as possible.
Boeing recognizes that Pilots should always have the final say as far as
control of the aircraft is concerned and you can't do that with hard limits.
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: France
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like complete nonsense to me, another made up story.
You always have final say on Airbus FBW aircraft. The protections are merely there to ensure that in normal ops you will remain inside the normal envelope: they protect against poor piloting skills, of course, but not at the expense of removing the pilots from the loop. Difficulties arise when people don't understand the systems, but that is hardly an issue unique to Airbus aircraft.