Crew workload in manual flying
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What’s wrong with reaching for the thrust levers below 10k?
I appreciate that on a lateral movement, flying the FDs isn’t critical, I just don’t see what the rush is. If the airspace is that busy that you turning 2 seconds earlier is going to make ALL the difference, ATC wouldn’t put you there in the first place. Vertical separation is slightly more critical, although neither is really a situation where you should be routinely disregarding the FD pitch bar as it will catch you out one day. It also fuels practical drift and other may not be so competent.
The benefit of ‘doing it properly like Airbus asked’ is that the PM identifies the fix before you confirming it. It traps a potential error when rushing wasn’t necessary. If ATC want you to turn in a hurry, they’ll issue a heading instruction which is easily achieved via the FCU in as little as a second.
Once a year, when you get ‘turn left heading xxx IMMEDIATELY, go nuts!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What’s the rush though?
I appreciate that on a lateral movement, flying the FDs isn’t critical, I just don’t see what the rush is. If the airspace is that busy that you turning 2 seconds earlier is going to make ALL the difference, ATC wouldn’t put you there in the first place. Vertical separation is slightly more critical, although neither is really a situation where you should be routinely disregarding the FD pitch bar as it will catch you out one day. It also fuels practical drift and other may not be so competent.
The benefit of ‘doing it properly like Airbus asked’ is that the PM identifies the fix before you confirming it. It traps a potential error when rushing wasn’t necessary. If ATC want you to turn in a hurry, they’ll issue a heading instruction which is easily achieved via the FCU in as little as a second.
Once a year, when you get ‘turn left heading xxx IMMEDIATELY, go nuts!
I appreciate that on a lateral movement, flying the FDs isn’t critical, I just don’t see what the rush is. If the airspace is that busy that you turning 2 seconds earlier is going to make ALL the difference, ATC wouldn’t put you there in the first place. Vertical separation is slightly more critical, although neither is really a situation where you should be routinely disregarding the FD pitch bar as it will catch you out one day. It also fuels practical drift and other may not be so competent.
The benefit of ‘doing it properly like Airbus asked’ is that the PM identifies the fix before you confirming it. It traps a potential error when rushing wasn’t necessary. If ATC want you to turn in a hurry, they’ll issue a heading instruction which is easily achieved via the FCU in as little as a second.
Once a year, when you get ‘turn left heading xxx IMMEDIATELY, go nuts!
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be?
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct.
Last edited by vilas; 18th Aug 2020 at 12:35.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ziltoidia... indeed'd.
Posts: 484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I reckon that I haven't read the whole thread, just the OP, but here is my question: since when following the FD bars is considered manual flying? I remember when I once asked a 4.000 hours FO "would you like to do a visual?", he said "yes, why not?" and I had to take the controls merely minutes after I switched off the FD because his pitch attitude was swinging from almost 8 degrees nose up to below the horizon. And that was with A/T ON.
Manual flying is not about workload, or just exercising the wrist muscles (yup, we use those for something entirely different), is about not needing a third party to know what is the proper pitch attitude, the right thrust setting, and the variations of both when banking the plane to maintain the desired trajectory. Any other thing is just an aiming exercise that will actually absorb the focus of the pilot.
Or maybe I am missing something here...
Manual flying is not about workload, or just exercising the wrist muscles (yup, we use those for something entirely different), is about not needing a third party to know what is the proper pitch attitude, the right thrust setting, and the variations of both when banking the plane to maintain the desired trajectory. Any other thing is just an aiming exercise that will actually absorb the focus of the pilot.
Or maybe I am missing something here...
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in EASA land one of the exercises flown during the LPC is a manually flown 3D approach with OEI - FD stays ON.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(While it's not particularly 'occupying my mind', I do "... consider [my]self VERY lucky indeed"!)
Back to the topic: Of course 'manual flying' increases workload. Autopilots were 'invented' to reduce workload. But the workload increases when the pilot(s) are out of practice with hand flying. What is the saying? "Practice makes perfect". Airlines that are discouraging the practice are increasing a potential safety risk for one day when the automatics fail. (I heard an airline's Flight Op Director once say "If I hear of any captain saying we don't hand fly in this airline, I need to put him right" -- that practice is important.) Many years ago I flew with someone who was hand-flying entire sectors regularly (OK, only about an hour length each...) and this prompted me to 'reciprocate'; after a short while we were both very proficient and accurate with our workloads coming down to near the levels of automated flight. "Practice makes perfect"! (It was a bit more tiring though, those autopilots were invented for a good reason!)
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's understand one thing that it not possible to fly more accurately without FD than with FD. It's not only easy to center them, FD also anticipates coming out of turn, LOC*(which incidentally comes before LOC becomes alive), GS* etc, To become proficient in flying without FD you switch them off that doesn't mean when FD is on its ok not center them. Looking beyond FD is something different. That is after centering FD one should also check the pitch is appx. OK for the situation. In UAS when speed is increasing if one blindly only follows FD then FD pitch will keep rising till the aircraft stalls. So if pitch should be 5° and FD is centred on 10° then one needs to check other references like the other FD, speed to confirm and if FDs are suspect then a proper announcement should be made about not following FD and they should be switched off or other FD is followed. But randomly now I follow FD now I don't is going to confuse the other guy and is not a smart way to fly. FDs are there to be followed unless they are switched off.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,419
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be?
1 - Wait for the PM to readback the instruction (if we got it wrong/it was not for us in ALT* we are in for a level bust)
2 - After readback from the PM, the PF dials the new ALTITUDE in the FCU and calls it XXX BLUE - PM checks.
3 - PF selects an appropriate vertical mode. If the aircraft ended up in ALT in the mean time so be it.
4 - PF or PM (depending on airline SOPs) sets a direct to wherever.
The whole procedure in an orderly and disciplined way will probably take less than 10 seconds or so.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Basic manual flying is easy because it's intuitive. Even more so with all the fly by wire assistance. Operating an airliner and continuously fully comprehending it's state and various modes is a whole different story. For this reason I'm not totally sold on encouraging the distraction of manual flying beyond the takeoff and landing phases. It does polish skills but in practice they only need to be at a certain basic level. In my opinion it's an emotionally appealing argument but in reality the risk vs reward doesn't stack up.
I remember when I once asked a 4.000 hours FO "would you like to do a visual?", he said "yes, why not?" and I had to take the controls merely minutes after I switched off the FD because his pitch attitude was swinging from almost 8 degrees nose up to below the horizon. And that was with A/T ON.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not an isolated incident, sadly. In the sim I have seen someone with a five-digit number of jet hours almost stall in alternate law with no AP and manual thrust. Very close to stall speed and pulling some stupid G when abruptly levelling off from descent. And what about Air France, where a crew of three couldn't recognise a stall and not even one of them took over control and performed the recovery memory items? What about Air Asia, where the FO achieved some crazy four-digit rate of climb at FL370 and eventually stalled the aircraft because of literally not being able to fly straight and level?
Back when I did my line training, one of the training Captains had the habit of disconnecting the autopilot for a moment at random times during flight, just so that you hear the sound and get your head round the fact that it can happen and it won't result in the aircraft crashing. And, when you do this to many people, their startle in the beginning is great. Precisely what happened with Air Asia. The overly fast and jerky reactions of the FO which put the aircraft into a steep climb ending with a stall were largely due to startle and stress. So, flying manually can also be seen as the sort of confidence booster reminding you that it's ultimately you in charge and not the autopilot. The autopilot is a fantastic tool, very convenient and making life a whole lot easier - but it's there to serve you and implement your decisions, not to do its own thing. The better people understand that, the smaller the chance of incidents and accidents related to loss of control in flight.
Back when I did my line training, one of the training Captains had the habit of disconnecting the autopilot for a moment at random times during flight, just so that you hear the sound and get your head round the fact that it can happen and it won't result in the aircraft crashing. And, when you do this to many people, their startle in the beginning is great. Precisely what happened with Air Asia. The overly fast and jerky reactions of the FO which put the aircraft into a steep climb ending with a stall were largely due to startle and stress. So, flying manually can also be seen as the sort of confidence booster reminding you that it's ultimately you in charge and not the autopilot. The autopilot is a fantastic tool, very convenient and making life a whole lot easier - but it's there to serve you and implement your decisions, not to do its own thing. The better people understand that, the smaller the chance of incidents and accidents related to loss of control in flight.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We really do need a like button. To be clear, nobody’s advocating routinely ignoring the FD. When I’m not using it, it’s off. The points I’m trying to make are that it’s not unsafe to momentarily deviate from what the FD wants until the FCU can catch up, and that turning off all the automation is not some sort of emergency or abnormal procedure.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
whats wrong is to fly away from FD commands, fail to notice A/T not transitioning from Thrust Mode
to Speed Mode and wondering why the IAS trend line is heading to 350!!
To be fair, that document is talking about circle to land approaches rather than visuals. On a visual, as far as I know, the autopilot COULD be used to the FCOM limitation. TRK/FPA would be the most appropriate mode, but again, I don't know why you'd do that, you're just making life harder for both you and the other guy. Perhaps that guidance is echoed for visual approaches, but it doesn't explicitly mention them.
I still think if someone wants to, there is no decent reason why they can't put in a few PBDs and few lines on there. I draw an MSA ring (or maybe even an MRC ring) on the fix page when going to somewhere with an unusual terrain profile. Doesn't mean I am going to fly it. For me it just enhances my SA.
My reaction would be to ask the PM why they didn't change the FCU first before going into the FMS like he or she was taught during line training. It's far easier to remember waypoint VALKO amongst a list of say 10 very different waypoints, rather than whether it was FL120 or FL130 after 30 seconds of searching for the correct waypoint in the FMS and the discussion that has ensued. Be disciplined and it all works just fine!
Interestingly, I went to an instructors conference recently (not as fancy as Singapore I'm afraid) that highlighted how that's no big deal either.
The aircraft will quite happily overspeed and look after itself. I guess we get conditioned by the drama of a low speed event in the sim and via incident reports, that any airbus protection activation results in either a serious reprimand, or dismissal. Apart from a tiny bit of paperwork, nothing more than perhaps a little bit of speedbrake and an FCU adjustment is required. The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day and no damage will occur - he even eats his lunch at that speed! He said that never in the history of the company, has an Airbus ever been damaged due to a highspeed event.
On the contrary, the mess that occurs due to an overreaction to a highspeed event is incredible. People see the red tape on the speed scale as the point at which the wings will fall off (the inverse of the stall strip being the point where the aircraft is no longer flying) and that it is really not a big deal. Overreacting will put the aircraft into alpha-prot and alpha-floor quicker than you can imagine when the stick is yanked back by some unsuspecting pilot.
The big take-away was to leave the autopilot in as it is better at flying at high altitude than you are and an overspeed is no big deal.
I still think if someone wants to, there is no decent reason why they can't put in a few PBDs and few lines on there. I draw an MSA ring (or maybe even an MRC ring) on the fix page when going to somewhere with an unusual terrain profile. Doesn't mean I am going to fly it. For me it just enhances my SA.
How about another scenario? You're in the climb, and just as ALT* engages, ATC gives a further climb and a direct. The PM reads it back, gets into the FMS to attend to the direct clearance, meanwhile the FD bar is now commanding a pitch for level flight. What would your reaction be?
The aircraft will quite happily overspeed and look after itself. I guess we get conditioned by the drama of a low speed event in the sim and via incident reports, that any airbus protection activation results in either a serious reprimand, or dismissal. Apart from a tiny bit of paperwork, nothing more than perhaps a little bit of speedbrake and an FCU adjustment is required. The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day and no damage will occur - he even eats his lunch at that speed! He said that never in the history of the company, has an Airbus ever been damaged due to a highspeed event.
On the contrary, the mess that occurs due to an overreaction to a highspeed event is incredible. People see the red tape on the speed scale as the point at which the wings will fall off (the inverse of the stall strip being the point where the aircraft is no longer flying) and that it is really not a big deal. Overreacting will put the aircraft into alpha-prot and alpha-floor quicker than you can imagine when the stick is yanked back by some unsuspecting pilot.
The big take-away was to leave the autopilot in as it is better at flying at high altitude than you are and an overspeed is no big deal.
Last edited by giggitygiggity; 19th Aug 2020 at 01:03. Reason: added to a previous post to avoid triple posting
Moderator
Of course 'manual flying' increases workload. Autopilots were 'invented' to reduce workload. But the workload increases when the pilot(s) are out of practice with hand flying. What is the saying? "Practice makes perfect". Airlines that are discouraging the practice are increasing a potential safety risk for one day when the automatics fail. (I heard an airline's Flight Op Director once say "If I hear of any captain saying we don't hand fly in this airline, I need to put him right" -- that practice is important.) Many years ago I flew with someone who was hand-flying entire sectors regularly (OK, only about an hour length each...) and this prompted me to 'reciprocate'; after a short while we were both very proficient and accurate with our workloads coming down to near the levels of automated flight. "Practice makes perfect"! (It was a bit more tiring though, those autopilots were invented for a good reason!)
(My bolding)
Or, as a very pragmatic DAME once observed during a renewal, when I jokingly queried why he was putting me through the (cold) stethoscope thing, ... "if I don't practice them, I lose the skillset elements". l think the comments from the previous post are extremely relevant to the philosophy of things.
I am not suggesting that one should necessarily do this or that - for such is the province of regulatory oversight and operator SOP, especially for routine operations.
However, it is a lemma that those who practice intelligently and regularly generally get good at what it might be that they practice. Those who don't practice, often get very bad at what it might be that they don't practice .. especially when Murphy conspires to put them in a situation where they have no option but to demonstrate either their competence or lack thereof. Most will be aware of the longstanding aphorism, variously attributed to a variety of folk including Gary Player, Charles Goren, and others - when asked how it is that they are so routinely lucky in their chosen activity, the response is along the lines of "the more I practice, the luckier I get".
The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day
.. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised".
I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8)
(My bolding)
Or, as a very pragmatic DAME once observed during a renewal, when I jokingly queried why he was putting me through the (cold) stethoscope thing, ... "if I don't practice them, I lose the skillset elements". l think the comments from the previous post are extremely relevant to the philosophy of things.
I am not suggesting that one should necessarily do this or that - for such is the province of regulatory oversight and operator SOP, especially for routine operations.
However, it is a lemma that those who practice intelligently and regularly generally get good at what it might be that they practice. Those who don't practice, often get very bad at what it might be that they don't practice .. especially when Murphy conspires to put them in a situation where they have no option but to demonstrate either their competence or lack thereof. Most will be aware of the longstanding aphorism, variously attributed to a variety of folk including Gary Player, Charles Goren, and others - when asked how it is that they are so routinely lucky in their chosen activity, the response is along the lines of "the more I practice, the luckier I get".
The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day
.. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised".
I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8)
The guy impressed me when he said that he flies the A320 quite happily at 30-35kts above VMO all day
.. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised".
I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8)
.. but probably displays a lack of certification knowledge and regulatory compliance discipline. I would have been more impressed had his observation been along the lines of "it isn't going to cause a problem if Vmo is exceeded for a short period, but I won't intentionally permit it to occur unless specifically authorised".
I am presuming that the Airbus is aligned with the usual Vmo/Mmo requirements as, for example, in FAR 25.1505 (https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-id...11505&rgn=div8)
He discussed flying the A320 as a test aircraft rather than a certificated aircraft - sitting at that speed for 30mins towards 2hrs for certification purposes. That's a very different situation than commercial ops; so any of your FAA regs go out the window. He explained that Airbus flew at that speed to calculate a regulatory VMO. I recall poorly - as half of it was going well over my simple head, but it was along the lines of that if they can prove the aircraft can recover from a dive where max speed reaches 385kts without damage (VMO+35kts), then via regulatory requirements, that aircraft can be certificated upto 350kts; tested speed -10% or whatever the regulator required - I'm sure the FAA or EASA has buried that requirement far deeper than you have found.
To satisfy the FAA regs, I imagine that they'd need a big sticker saying "Experimental Aircraft" above the door or something as equally pointless to keep the fed from blushing.
I don't know FAA regs but I would have thought something similar would be amongst the rules over there? How is a VMO calculated under FAA regs? 350kts is a nice round number, but I'm pretty sure there is a little more too it than that?!