Crew workload in manual flying
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I will start by saying I only have Boeing experience, but plenty of it, including instructing 250hr cadets.
Manual flying is absolutely essential and should be taught and practiced throughout anyone's career. Generally speaking, the biggest threat in manually flying that I see, is not your ability, as you are aware of this before you disconnect (and have hopefully learned to be humble and not overconfident), it is your PM/PNFs ability to handle absolutely everything that could be thrown at them while you are potentially out of the loop. A lot of things happen between 15nm and touchdown, which judged from the OPs original post they either think the PMs job is easy, or just lack of experience. So what happens on a 737...
This is all assuming a very capable and experienced PF, sorry to say at 5 months, the chances are the OP does not fall into this category. The number of times I hear in the sim and on the line, while manually flying, potentially FDs off, the PF call in one breath "Gear DN, Flaps 15, Landing Checks". The PF is forgetting that they have change thrust, pitch trim while following the ILS and LOC in a changing config. You can guarantee they are very much unable to be ready for the landing checks in the time it takes me to move the levers, do my flow, and start calling the checks. The PF does need to be aware of their ability as well.... remember a confirm action after a V1 cut, on your first sim, you are giving it everything to track the centre line, climb, maintain rudder and then your asked to look down to verify a fire handle? Same principle, you have to be ready as PF, have everything settled before calling for a checklist (that you could potentially overwhelm yourself by not been prepared to properly verify and check that item).
Going back to why not let PF manipulate the MCP/FCU? How was your first nav trip in a single-engine? When you looked down and left at your map did you inadvertently turn and descend slightly? Not many pilots can say they flew straight and level while map reading, keeping a plog and hand flying in a C152 on day 1. Same in an A320/B737, you would be amazed the deviations created when the PF has manipulated the MCP/FCU. I've seen significant speed decreases, increase, turns, and increased rates of descents (rarely climbs?). For what reason? They've disconnected the Autopilot, the FDs can be seen almost as decoration as long as you are aware and no that you can fly through an FD. They could of all waited 5 secs, and asked the PM once caught up to change the MCP. All but the experienced seemed to of preferred 5kt speed deviations, or V/S increased of 500fpm and then have to dig themselves out of that hole (again more workload for both).
Why you shouldn't do it as PF, and why Boeing and seemingly Airbus both advocate that the PM manipulates the MCP in manual flight...simple really... experience says it is safer and leads to less undesirable states, which is surely what we all want.
Manual flying is absolutely essential and should be taught and practiced throughout anyone's career. Generally speaking, the biggest threat in manually flying that I see, is not your ability, as you are aware of this before you disconnect (and have hopefully learned to be humble and not overconfident), it is your PM/PNFs ability to handle absolutely everything that could be thrown at them while you are potentially out of the loop. A lot of things happen between 15nm and touchdown, which judged from the OPs original post they either think the PMs job is easy, or just lack of experience. So what happens on a 737...
- PF Calls for Flap 1, PM checks the speed is appropriate, moves the lever, confirms their action, resets the speed bug for F1 speed, confirms their action
- PF Calls for Flap 5, PM (see above)
- ATC calls cleared for the Approach (maybe with vectors), PM replies to ATC, sets a new heading, sets a new altitude, checks the LOC/GS is accurate, arms the APP, confirms their actions
- Established, PM calls what they see, sets the MAA in the MCP, sets the runway heading in the MCP, calls ATC established
- "Have we had cabin secure yet?" PM calls the senior, waits for them to pick up, asks them if secure or not, comes back and informs the PF
- ATC changes you to tower frequency, PM responds, changes the frequency, calls the Tower, replies to the response to the tower
- PF calls for the Gear down F15, PM checks the speed is appropriate, sets the Gear down, sets the F15, arms the speedbrake, confirms their action, resets the MCP speed, confirms their action, runs the initial flow for the landing checklist
- PF calls for landing checklist, PM reads, looks, waits response, (likely points to reduce PF workload)
- PM seats the cabin crew for landing just as ATC clear you to land, so now slightly behind the curve, but catches up
- PF calls for landing flap, PM checks the speed is appropriate, moves the lever, confirms their action, resets the speed bug for final approach speed, confirms their action
- Aircraft reaches landing gate, the PM accesses if the aircraft is stabilized and a safe landing can be made... calls it.
This is all assuming a very capable and experienced PF, sorry to say at 5 months, the chances are the OP does not fall into this category. The number of times I hear in the sim and on the line, while manually flying, potentially FDs off, the PF call in one breath "Gear DN, Flaps 15, Landing Checks". The PF is forgetting that they have change thrust, pitch trim while following the ILS and LOC in a changing config. You can guarantee they are very much unable to be ready for the landing checks in the time it takes me to move the levers, do my flow, and start calling the checks. The PF does need to be aware of their ability as well.... remember a confirm action after a V1 cut, on your first sim, you are giving it everything to track the centre line, climb, maintain rudder and then your asked to look down to verify a fire handle? Same principle, you have to be ready as PF, have everything settled before calling for a checklist (that you could potentially overwhelm yourself by not been prepared to properly verify and check that item).
Going back to why not let PF manipulate the MCP/FCU? How was your first nav trip in a single-engine? When you looked down and left at your map did you inadvertently turn and descend slightly? Not many pilots can say they flew straight and level while map reading, keeping a plog and hand flying in a C152 on day 1. Same in an A320/B737, you would be amazed the deviations created when the PF has manipulated the MCP/FCU. I've seen significant speed decreases, increase, turns, and increased rates of descents (rarely climbs?). For what reason? They've disconnected the Autopilot, the FDs can be seen almost as decoration as long as you are aware and no that you can fly through an FD. They could of all waited 5 secs, and asked the PM once caught up to change the MCP. All but the experienced seemed to of preferred 5kt speed deviations, or V/S increased of 500fpm and then have to dig themselves out of that hole (again more workload for both).
Why you shouldn't do it as PF, and why Boeing and seemingly Airbus both advocate that the PM manipulates the MCP in manual flight...simple really... experience says it is safer and leads to less undesirable states, which is surely what we all want.
Agreed with your general thoughts on the MCP though. I think what the OP is talking about though, is quickly setting a speed or heading while the PM is busy (calling the cabin crew in your case). I don’t imagine that doing so when necessary is a threat to safety.
Last edited by Check Airman; 15th Aug 2020 at 19:53.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure how this even generates a 2 page thread. Airbus has always been PM sets everything if PF is flying manually. After a while you don't even think about it, both are in the loop and 2 experienced pilots will intuitively set the FCU after a radio call and be listening too/for the confirmation from the PF while doing it. We all know we could do the whole thing ourselves, thats why there are 2 of us on the flight deck, but whilst both are working, both need to have a common situational awareness of the moment.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So we are looking at the PM making approximately 40 actions in the last 7 minutes of the flight, averaged out (which it never is) is something every 10 seconds"
Excellent reason to not add more actions on the PM that the PF could easily do.
At least there is a reason in the rest of your message : possible flight path deviation due to looking at something that's not an horizon.
I will let that sink in, but at first sight it does not entirely convince me. Especially on an airbus, you can look away for a third of a second, the aircraft is supposed to be stable.
It's just like when you check "autobrake", "ecam memo" on final approach, you have to look away from the horizon for half a second or so, it usually does not destabilize the trajectory.
Excellent reason to not add more actions on the PM that the PF could easily do.
At least there is a reason in the rest of your message : possible flight path deviation due to looking at something that's not an horizon.
I will let that sink in, but at first sight it does not entirely convince me. Especially on an airbus, you can look away for a third of a second, the aircraft is supposed to be stable.
It's just like when you check "autobrake", "ecam memo" on final approach, you have to look away from the horizon for half a second or so, it usually does not destabilize the trajectory.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a big NO-NO to fly through the flight director on the Airbus? Would it trigger some protections?
Because it's what I do all the time when flying manually. For example, out of our base for a departure that initially takes us to the North, passing FL60 we're often cleared to any waypoint that could be also in the third page of the LEGS page. It will take around 5 seconds maybe to select it, ask me to confirm and execute. In the meanwhile, I am already established in a 25-degree bank angle turn with the vertical FD bar fully deflected to the side. It will recenter.
Because it's what I do all the time when flying manually. For example, out of our base for a departure that initially takes us to the North, passing FL60 we're often cleared to any waypoint that could be also in the third page of the LEGS page. It will take around 5 seconds maybe to select it, ask me to confirm and execute. In the meanwhile, I am already established in a 25-degree bank angle turn with the vertical FD bar fully deflected to the side. It will recenter.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it a big NO-NO to fly through the flight director on the Airbus? Would it trigger some protections?
Because it's what I do all the time when flying manually. For example, out of our base for a departure that initially takes us to the North, passing FL60 we're often cleared to any waypoint that could be also in the third page of the LEGS page. It will take around 5 seconds maybe to select it, ask me to confirm and execute. In the meanwhile, I am already established in a 25-degree bank angle turn with the vertical FD bar fully deflected to the side. It will recenter.
Because it's what I do all the time when flying manually. For example, out of our base for a departure that initially takes us to the North, passing FL60 we're often cleared to any waypoint that could be also in the third page of the LEGS page. It will take around 5 seconds maybe to select it, ask me to confirm and execute. In the meanwhile, I am already established in a 25-degree bank angle turn with the vertical FD bar fully deflected to the side. It will recenter.
That said, I just remembered that at LGW there was a SID that we were told to manually start the turn inside the FD bars command so that we complied with the noise abatement measurements. It would always flag up a noise transgression if you left NAV to do its work!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a No on that one, the manuals clearly state that if the FD's on they should be followed to avoid a conflict between what the FMGS is commanding the Athr to do and what you are flying manually, it can get embarrassing . The normal case is to switch the FD's off during manual flight if flying visually automatics off. If you have a full and comprehensive knowledge of how the AP/Athr/FD/FMGS and Side Sticks all inter relate with each other then what you are doing in the departure is OK-ish if not sanctioned. If you want some real excitement try a FD off manually flown SID. Tried it once, didn't like it! :-)
That said, I just remembered that at LGW there was a SID that we were told to manually start the turn inside the FD bars command so that we complied with the noise abatement measurements. It would always flag up a noise transgression if you left NAV to do its work!
That said, I just remembered that at LGW there was a SID that we were told to manually start the turn inside the FD bars command so that we complied with the noise abatement measurements. It would always flag up a noise transgression if you left NAV to do its work!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a No on that one, the manuals clearly state that if the FD's on they should be followed to avoid a conflict between what the FMGS is commanding the Athr to do and what you are flying manually, it can get embarrassing . The normal case is to switch the FD's off during manual flight if flying visually automatics off. If you have a full and comprehensive knowledge of how the AP/Athr/FD/FMGS and Side Sticks all inter relate with each other then what you are doing in the departure is OK-ish if not sanctioned. If you want some real excitement try a FD off manually flown SID. Tried it once, didn't like it! :-)
That said, I just remembered that at LGW there was a SID that we were told to manually start the turn inside the FD bars command so that we complied with the noise abatement measurements. It would always flag up a noise transgression if you left NAV to do its work!
That said, I just remembered that at LGW there was a SID that we were told to manually start the turn inside the FD bars command so that we complied with the noise abatement measurements. It would always flag up a noise transgression if you left NAV to do its work!
But how can you fly an RNAV sid without FDs ? If you don't have any deviation indication, except the ND map ? I never encountered the case.
PM:
- dial in the FCU
- do the RT, e.g. read back of numbers you have dialed in
but never ever at the same time.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We didn't have any problem at all with conventional SIDS all manually, during MCC course (all manual = FDs off, of course, manual flying with FDs on is being a flight control actuator rather than a pilot)
But how can you fly an RNAV sid without FDs ? If you don't have any deviation indication, except the ND map ? I never encountered the case.
But how can you fly an RNAV sid without FDs ? If you don't have any deviation indication, except the ND map ? I never encountered the case.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That actually makes a lot of sense. I was more referring to the idea that adding the FCU to the PM’s area of responsibility increases workload.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gearlever, it sounds like in your company the PM sets up the FCU without command from the PF when the PF is flying manually? This actually makes a lot of sense.
Further to the topic of PM workload, one more factor to consider is the MCDU. At my present carrier, even with the AP engaged all MCDU entries below FL100 are strictly PM territory. At my previous one, there were two exceptions to this rule - DIR TO and activation of the APPR PHASE. As I understand it, the reason behind not allowing the PF to perform DIR TO himself is to make him remain head-up at all times and cross-check the correct TO waypoint on the ND. Which makes sense. And it's a pretty good counterargument to the claim that manual flight significantly increases PM workload. Realistically, on your average RNAV departure where you are given a flight level and a direct to somewhere after takeoff, you will only spare your PM working with the altitude dial by engaging the AP. Of course, there can be exceptions to this. One example is if your cleared altitude is quite low - like 5000 feet. Then, if you leave the aircraft to accelerate and climb in CLB, you risk triggering someone's TCAS by your high RoC close to the cleared altitude. So, it's smarter to engage the AP in V/S and set an appropriate RoC.
Further to the topic of PM workload, one more factor to consider is the MCDU. At my present carrier, even with the AP engaged all MCDU entries below FL100 are strictly PM territory. At my previous one, there were two exceptions to this rule - DIR TO and activation of the APPR PHASE. As I understand it, the reason behind not allowing the PF to perform DIR TO himself is to make him remain head-up at all times and cross-check the correct TO waypoint on the ND. Which makes sense. And it's a pretty good counterargument to the claim that manual flight significantly increases PM workload. Realistically, on your average RNAV departure where you are given a flight level and a direct to somewhere after takeoff, you will only spare your PM working with the altitude dial by engaging the AP. Of course, there can be exceptions to this. One example is if your cleared altitude is quite low - like 5000 feet. Then, if you leave the aircraft to accelerate and climb in CLB, you risk triggering someone's TCAS by your high RoC close to the cleared altitude. So, it's smarter to engage the AP in V/S and set an appropriate RoC.
gearlever, it sounds like in your company the PM sets up the FCU without command from the PF when the PF is flying manually? This actually makes a lot of sense.
Further to the topic of PM workload, one more factor to consider is the MCDU. At my present carrier, even with the AP engaged all MCDU entries below FL100 are strictly PM territory. At my previous one, there were two exceptions to this rule - DIR TO and activation of the APPR PHASE. As I understand it, the reason behind not allowing the PF to perform DIR TO himself is to make him remain head-up at all times and cross-check the correct TO waypoint on the ND. Which makes sense. And it's a pretty good counterargument to the claim that manual flight significantly increases PM workload. Realistically, on your average RNAV departure where you are given a flight level and a direct to somewhere after takeoff, you will only spare your PM working with the altitude dial by engaging the AP. Of course, there can be exceptions to this. One example is if your cleared altitude is quite low - like 5000 feet. Then, if you leave the aircraft to accelerate and climb in CLB, you risk triggering someone's TCAS by your high RoC close to the cleared altitude. So, it's smarter to engage the AP in V/S and set an appropriate RoC.
Further to the topic of PM workload, one more factor to consider is the MCDU. At my present carrier, even with the AP engaged all MCDU entries below FL100 are strictly PM territory. At my previous one, there were two exceptions to this rule - DIR TO and activation of the APPR PHASE. As I understand it, the reason behind not allowing the PF to perform DIR TO himself is to make him remain head-up at all times and cross-check the correct TO waypoint on the ND. Which makes sense. And it's a pretty good counterargument to the claim that manual flight significantly increases PM workload. Realistically, on your average RNAV departure where you are given a flight level and a direct to somewhere after takeoff, you will only spare your PM working with the altitude dial by engaging the AP. Of course, there can be exceptions to this. One example is if your cleared altitude is quite low - like 5000 feet. Then, if you leave the aircraft to accelerate and climb in CLB, you risk triggering someone's TCAS by your high RoC close to the cleared altitude. So, it's smarter to engage the AP in V/S and set an appropriate RoC.
2. Yes
Same Company?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is eye opening. I had no idea that there were airlines that made the PM wait for the PF to set the FCU. What’s the logic behind that?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My Operator:
- PM is always working the radio, normal, abnormal situations
- PF dials in the FCU if on auto flight
- if flying manually PM dials in the FCU without command/order by PF, just what he/she believes to have heard from ATC