Crew workload in manual flying
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
From: Uk
Redhill planning appeal
Please write to support Redhill's taxiway, which helps them operate in the winter (main runway is grass)
https://planning.reigate-banstead.go...=QDK3Z3MV0PV00
https://planning.reigate-banstead.go...=QDK3Z3MV0PV00
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 26
From: Australia
the absolute best help is the FPA Flight path Angle ( the Bird on AB).
if you wish to practice real raw data manual flying then make sure you turn off the FPA indicator. Too many pilots depend heavily on the FPA for pitch control. Their normal six pack scan is shot. Without the crutch of the FPA indicator, watch the fun start.
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,775
Likes: 353
From: UK
Noel, re 'children of the magenta … '
The most important item which the training presentation does not tell you, is when to turn the automatics off (and how you know - and why).
Pilots must understand which are the most important flight parameters and the action 'trigger' values, and have sufficient mental capacity (low workload) to make those judgements.
This is not learnt by watching videos.
-
Not to renew the AoA debate, but if an aircraft has EFIS airspeed displayed with low speed awareness symbology overlaid, then this is a 'display' of AoA. Also it is referenced to action values, stall warning and stall.
We do not need more displays to 'help' pilots in unique situations, situations which first should be identified and avoided.
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation. The task is first to understand the situation, second choosing an appropriate action, both aspects demanding significant mental workload.
Don't clutter the mental process with more checks and calls, they are distracting, interrupt the primary task, and tend towards multi tasking - which we cannot do.
TM, FPA off
The most important item which the training presentation does not tell you, is when to turn the automatics off (and how you know - and why).
Pilots must understand which are the most important flight parameters and the action 'trigger' values, and have sufficient mental capacity (low workload) to make those judgements.
This is not learnt by watching videos.
-
Not to renew the AoA debate, but if an aircraft has EFIS airspeed displayed with low speed awareness symbology overlaid, then this is a 'display' of AoA. Also it is referenced to action values, stall warning and stall.
We do not need more displays to 'help' pilots in unique situations, situations which first should be identified and avoided.
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation. The task is first to understand the situation, second choosing an appropriate action, both aspects demanding significant mental workload.
Don't clutter the mental process with more checks and calls, they are distracting, interrupt the primary task, and tend towards multi tasking - which we cannot do.
TM, FPA off
Only half a speed-brake
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,459
Likes: 136
From: Commuting not home
Raw data FPA off! Cheating with track line on ND allowed, since you cannot deactivate the green diamond on PFD anyway. 
Additional coarse view in agreement is that no matter the tool, someone will abuse or misuse it heavily one day. Even more so as getting the tool right is a hard task in the first place:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19920120-0
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160319-0
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation. The task is first to understand the situation, second choosing an appropriate action, both aspects demanding significant mental workload.
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19920120-0
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160319-0
Last edited by FlightDetent; 21st August 2020 at 12:41.
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 4,704
Likes: 589
From: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
but if an aircraft has EFIS airspeed displayed with low speed awareness symbology overlaid, then this is a 'display' of AoA. Also it is referenced to action values, stall warning and stall.
We do not need more displays to 'help' pilots in unique situations, situations which first should be identified and avoided.
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation.
We do not need more displays to 'help' pilots in unique situations, situations which first should be identified and avoided.
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation.
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
From: Kopavogur
Raw data FPA off! Cheating with track line on ND allowed, since you cannot turn the green diamond on PFD anyway.
Additional coarse view in agreement is that no matter the tool, someone will abuse or misuse it heavily one day. Even more so as getting the tool right is a hard task in the first place:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19920120-0
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160319-0
Additional coarse view in agreement is that no matter the tool, someone will abuse or misuse it heavily one day. Even more so as getting the tool right is a hard task in the first place:
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19920120-0
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160319-0
However, on aircraft without an AOA indicator, and to recover an upset/stall, the FPA is a huge help, and about the only use for the feature.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Not really. The opposite I would say. A friend of mine who is TRE, told me one pilot in the sim failed to recover a stall as he confused the pitch indicator with the bird. Plus it’s a bit laggy; That’s why the use of the bird is not recommended for dynamic manoeuvers such as go around and probably why in case of go around with the bird previously selected it will be automatically removed.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 83
Likes: 2
From: Central Europe
Not really. The opposite I would say. A friend of mine who is TRE, told me one pilot in the sim failed to recover a stall as he confused the pitch indicator with the bird. Plus it’s a bit laggy; That’s why the use of the bird is not recommended for dynamic manoeuvers such as go around and probably why in case of go around with the bird previously selected it will be automatically removed.
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 118
Likes: 7
From: italy
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.
Joined: Aug 2016
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
From: Europe
One reason why raw data manual flying might be frowned upon by the higher levels is precisely if people cannot decide when it is appropriate and when it isn't. RNAV procedure? ILS with a low cloud base and/or poor visibility? Independent parallel approaches? Use the appropriate level of automation - and that is the highest one, just as it was originally intended. Raw data VOR/DME procedure? ILS in reasonable weather? Visual approach or visual departure? It's your party, disconnect whatever you want and fly the plane. Performing an RNAV GNSS approach with no FDs or in TRACK-FPA is just as wrong as performing a visual approach in NAV. The FCTM is very explicit on the correct techniques for every type of approach, with some further useful comments provided as explanations to the steps listed in the FCOM Normal Procedures - Approach guidance management chapter. Plus any company requirements in the OM-B (for example, there's a certain major European carrier which permits flying a raw data approach or an approach with manual thrust, but not both at the same time).
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 594
Likes: 106
From: London
One reason why raw data manual flying might be frowned upon by the higher levels is precisely if people cannot decide when it is appropriate and when it isn't.
Plus any company requirements in the OM-B (for example, there's a certain major European carrier which permits flying a raw data approach or an approach with manual thrust, but not both at the same time).
Plus any company requirements in the OM-B (for example, there's a certain major European carrier which permits flying a raw data approach or an approach with manual thrust, but not both at the same time).
Point 2. Wow, unbelievable, and is that why, following an engine failure ( unlocked cowls) the captain had to get the FO to handle manual thrust for speed control ?
In my younger days, 50 years ago, in a Canberra we flew, single pilot, often to limits.
Raw data approaches without FD, we didnt have one !
We flew it in manual, AP not fitted !
Manual thrust, sometimes on one engine, no AT installed.
We more than coped, it was just the norm, we were well trained, ( and we could recover jets, large and small, from a stall without any “birds“ or A of A instrumentation,) and just got on with it, no problem.
.
I still dont understand the logic of one airline which does not allow use of manual thrust in normal ops. BUT allows dispatch with AT inop.!
Back, in my despair to much of what I read in this thread, to my morning coffee !
Last edited by RetiredBA/BY; 22nd August 2020 at 09:28.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Point 1, In which case they have the wrong calibre of pilots flying their jets!
Point 2. Wow, unbelievable, and is that why, following an engine failure ( unlocked cowls) the captain had to get the FO to handle manual thrust for speed control ?
In my younger days, 50 years ago, in a Canberra we flew, single pilot, often to limits.
Raw data approaches without FD, we didnt have one !
We flew it in manual, AP not fitted !
Manual thrust, sometimes on one engine, no AT installed.
We more than coped, it was just the norm, we were well trained, ( and we could recover jets, large and small, from a stall without any “birds“ or A of A instrumentation,) and just got on with it, no problem.
.
I still dont understand the logic of one airline which does not allow use of manual thrust in normal ops. BUT allows dispatch with AT inop.!
Back, in my despair to much of what I read in this thread, to my morning coffee !
Point 2. Wow, unbelievable, and is that why, following an engine failure ( unlocked cowls) the captain had to get the FO to handle manual thrust for speed control ?
In my younger days, 50 years ago, in a Canberra we flew, single pilot, often to limits.
Raw data approaches without FD, we didnt have one !
We flew it in manual, AP not fitted !
Manual thrust, sometimes on one engine, no AT installed.
We more than coped, it was just the norm, we were well trained, ( and we could recover jets, large and small, from a stall without any “birds“ or A of A instrumentation,) and just got on with it, no problem.
.
I still dont understand the logic of one airline which does not allow use of manual thrust in normal ops. BUT allows dispatch with AT inop.!
Back, in my despair to much of what I read in this thread, to my morning coffee !
Joined: Sep 2018
Posts: 359
Likes: 221
From: Yorkshire
Noel, re 'children of the magenta … '
The most important item which the training presentation does not tell you, is when to turn the automatics off (and how you know - and why).
Pilots must understand which are the most important flight parameters and the action 'trigger' values, and have sufficient mental capacity (low workload) to make those judgements.
This is not learnt by watching videos.
The most important item which the training presentation does not tell you, is when to turn the automatics off (and how you know - and why).
Pilots must understand which are the most important flight parameters and the action 'trigger' values, and have sufficient mental capacity (low workload) to make those judgements.
This is not learnt by watching videos.
RetiredBA/BY, for the second time on this Thread I agree with everything that you have said. There is one big difference between you and these new 'zero to hero wizz-kids': you were trained properly.
But you don't have to go as far back as to Canberra days to get back to that total hand-flying for real. The airline that I was in only 25 year ago (and not a small 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' airline, it was the third biggest scheduled carrier in the UK -- there's a clue to the name!) had an entire fleet that had no autopilots. The pilots on that fleet would daily 'do battle with the elements', with whatever the east coast haar or fret would throw at them, safely and successfully using only their skills and ability. I doubt that many of the modern 'button pushers' would have coped on a fleet like that.
An interesting comment about hand-flying: Vanderburgh, in that excellent lecture of his, considers hand-flying to be without autopilot and without auto-throttle where you are controlling the flight path and the energy of the aeroplane; with the auto-throttle still engaged he considered it to be just 'guiding the aeroplane'. I agree. Recently I 'hand flew' an approach from quite far out but with the auto-throttle still engaged. It was easy and I actually passed the comment to my colleague in t'other seat that by I was "cheating"!!
(Off the Thread for a mo and onto the Canberra topic: Did anyone notice what the high-altitude monitoring aeroplane was for the Spacex Dragon's return to earth? The Administrator of NASA said that he was the first Administrator not to have been alive when Americans were on the moon... Well,he wasn't alive when that aeroplane was built!!!)
Joined: Sep 2012
Posts: 261
Likes: 42
From: Europe
But you don't have to go as far back as to Canberra days to get back to that total hand-flying for real. The airline that I was in only 25 year ago (and not a small 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' airline, it was the third biggest scheduled carrier in the UK -- there's a clue to the name!) had an entire fleet that had no autopilots. The pilots on that fleet would daily 'do battle with the elements', with whatever the east coast haar or fret would throw at them, safely and successfully using only their skills and ability. I doubt that many of the modern 'button pushers' would have coped on a fleet like that.
But the job market did not encourage taking such a career path, as the plane was <10.000kg MTOW and less than 20 seats. I had roughly 2000hrs on the thing and couldn't get an interview to save my life no matter how many letters I sent out. Eventually was in the right place at the right time to roll into a jet job. I will still quite happily fly manual and even raw data with weather at CAT I minima. Properly briefed and if you are not on minimum fuel, it is a non-event.
Like the thread starter, I'm also still a bit confused by policies where the PM has to set speed/heading/altitude targets when PF is in manual flight. In my experience and opinion, it is more efficient for the PF to set and call them out and for the PM to monitor and call out any mistakes or issues. But on the other hand, it hasn't caused any huge issues yet, so I just roll with it. And if it seems that the PM is a bit swamped, which can still happen, especially with new guys... I'll just apply some common sense and set the damn things myself
.
Joined: Nov 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,150
Likes: 744
From: UK
I have a foot in both camps, having started my commercial flying career in a Shed, with no automatics at all, and finished on the Airbus FBW family, with the BAe146 and Boeing 737 on the way. So just by way of balance, that magenta guy strikes me as one who doesn't really trust 'new fangled' automatics. You simply cannot fly some of the things we fly today without automatics and the Nav systems we have now, so we need to know how to use them quickly and correctly. There are very good reasons for having the destination runway in the FMC of an Airbus FBW and it is a doddle to change it over.
There used to be three crew on the flight deck - two pilots and one engineer. Now there are only two, so more has to be monitored by fewer pairs of eyes and there are only two people to :
fly
navigate
trouble shoot
read checklists.
listen to ATC clearances
check correct selections being made by PF
fuel check
fuel transfer
engine check
prevent engine exceedances
ditto flap and gear speeds,
Cabin calls
Airframe de- or anti-ice.
Perform emergency drills and checklists.
T/O and landing performance
Fuelling
System 'admin' e.g. pressurisation and air-conditioning
Automatics help greatly with this increased workload.
Not all automatics are very well integrated and some have to be watched carefully, - hence no auto-thrust without auto-pilot on some, but Airbus FBW automatics and auto-thrust are excellent. This of course, while helping enormously with the workload, can bring problems of rusting hand flying skills: When tired or not wanting to screw up and cause a go-around after a long transatlantic crossing or whatever, it is very easy to rely on some or all of the automatics.
Chief pilots need to implement systems where hand flying is very strongly encouraged - preferred even - under certain conditions, so as to keep their pilot's skills sharp and flying ability up to speed, without jeopardising the commercial program.
There used to be three crew on the flight deck - two pilots and one engineer. Now there are only two, so more has to be monitored by fewer pairs of eyes and there are only two people to :
fly
navigate
trouble shoot
read checklists.
listen to ATC clearances
check correct selections being made by PF
fuel check
fuel transfer
engine check
prevent engine exceedances
ditto flap and gear speeds,
Cabin calls
Airframe de- or anti-ice.
Perform emergency drills and checklists.
T/O and landing performance
Fuelling
System 'admin' e.g. pressurisation and air-conditioning
Automatics help greatly with this increased workload.
Not all automatics are very well integrated and some have to be watched carefully, - hence no auto-thrust without auto-pilot on some, but Airbus FBW automatics and auto-thrust are excellent. This of course, while helping enormously with the workload, can bring problems of rusting hand flying skills: When tired or not wanting to screw up and cause a go-around after a long transatlantic crossing or whatever, it is very easy to rely on some or all of the automatics.
Chief pilots need to implement systems where hand flying is very strongly encouraged - preferred even - under certain conditions, so as to keep their pilot's skills sharp and flying ability up to speed, without jeopardising the commercial program.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
During my IR training, the aircraft had a garmin that indicated a lateral deviation and a precise time to perform the turns. Flying RNAV raw data was completely feasible and reasonable.
On the airbus without any precise indication of lateral deviation, yes, impossible, I agree...
If the manufacturer gives less information, then manual flying will be harder.
Try to fly a DME arc with an old DME that gives DME speed : if you know how to use it, you can make a DME arc that's precise to +/- 0.1nm, regardless of wind conditions and other difficulties.
If you try to do the same with a newer equipment (G1000 for example) which does not give DME speed, you lose a valuable information and precision will drop, and mental workload will have to increase in order to compensate.
Now try to perform a DME arc without a DME indicator. It would be forbidden, for the same reason why RNAV without FD is forbidden on the airbus...
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
While acknowledging the importance of understanding how to use automation, I laugh at the suggestion that there’s some regular practice required to get the AP to do what you want. We’ve all made FCU/MCP errors at some point.
How often have you thought, “I need to practice using the AP some more; I’m getting rusty” vs “I need to do some more raw data hand flying; I’m getting rusty”?
How often have you thought, “I need to practice using the AP some more; I’m getting rusty” vs “I need to do some more raw data hand flying; I’m getting rusty”?
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
You don't even have to go back 25 years. I started 8-9 years ago on a 19-seat turboprop with an operator that had a fleet of about 12 of them. Only two had autopilots, only one AP was any good. Regular CAT I ILS approaches with weather at minima and flying in conditions from +35C to -40C. And these jobs are still around.
But the job market did not encourage taking such a career path, as the plane was <10.000kg MTOW and less than 20 seats. I had roughly 2000hrs on the thing and couldn't get an interview to save my life no matter how many letters I sent out. Eventually was in the right place at the right time to roll into a jet job. I will still quite happily fly manual and even raw data with weather at CAT I minima. Properly briefed and if you are not on minimum fuel, it is a non-event.
Like the thread starter, I'm also still a bit confused by policies where the PM has to set speed/heading/altitude targets when PF is in manual flight. In my experience and opinion, it is more efficient for the PF to set and call them out and for the PM to monitor and call out any mistakes or issues. But on the other hand, it hasn't caused any huge issues yet, so I just roll with it. And if it seems that the PM is a bit swamped, which can still happen, especially with new guys... I'll just apply some common sense and set the damn things myself.
But the job market did not encourage taking such a career path, as the plane was <10.000kg MTOW and less than 20 seats. I had roughly 2000hrs on the thing and couldn't get an interview to save my life no matter how many letters I sent out. Eventually was in the right place at the right time to roll into a jet job. I will still quite happily fly manual and even raw data with weather at CAT I minima. Properly briefed and if you are not on minimum fuel, it is a non-event.
Like the thread starter, I'm also still a bit confused by policies where the PM has to set speed/heading/altitude targets when PF is in manual flight. In my experience and opinion, it is more efficient for the PF to set and call them out and for the PM to monitor and call out any mistakes or issues. But on the other hand, it hasn't caused any huge issues yet, so I just roll with it. And if it seems that the PM is a bit swamped, which can still happen, especially with new guys... I'll just apply some common sense and set the damn things myself
.To your last paragraph, I think the difficulty with the OP’s company is that they force the PF to tell the PM to set the FCU. That does increase workload.
Fully agree with your last statement though. At the end of the day, good sense must prevail. If the PM is busy, set the FCU yourself if necessary.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
This is or at least could be airplane dependent.
During my IR training, the aircraft had a garmin that indicated a lateral deviation and a precise time to perform the turns. Flying RNAV raw data was completely feasible and reasonable.
On the airbus without any precise indication of lateral deviation, yes, impossible, I agree...
If the manufacturer gives less information, then manual flying will be harder.
Try to fly a DME arc with an old DME that gives DME speed : if you know how to use it, you can make a DME arc that's precise to +/- 0.1nm, regardless of wind conditions and other difficulties.
If you try to do the same with a newer equipment (G1000 for example) which does not give DME speed, you lose a valuable information and precision will drop, and mental workload will have to increase in order to compensate.
Now try to perform a DME arc without a DME indicator. It would be forbidden, for the same reason why RNAV without FD is forbidden on the airbus...
During my IR training, the aircraft had a garmin that indicated a lateral deviation and a precise time to perform the turns. Flying RNAV raw data was completely feasible and reasonable.
On the airbus without any precise indication of lateral deviation, yes, impossible, I agree...
If the manufacturer gives less information, then manual flying will be harder.
Try to fly a DME arc with an old DME that gives DME speed : if you know how to use it, you can make a DME arc that's precise to +/- 0.1nm, regardless of wind conditions and other difficulties.
If you try to do the same with a newer equipment (G1000 for example) which does not give DME speed, you lose a valuable information and precision will drop, and mental workload will have to increase in order to compensate.
Now try to perform a DME arc without a DME indicator. It would be forbidden, for the same reason why RNAV without FD is forbidden on the airbus...
I haven’t tried it, but I assume in a pickle, I could use it to get in if the FD failed.
Really unfortunate that only the smaller planes (regional jets) have CDIs. I used to enjoy flying RNAV sids and stars on “raw data”.