Crew workload in manual flying
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crew workload in manual flying
Hello,
I started flying on the line this february, after having done the multi crew training in october of last year, on the bus.
To this date, I still haven't fully understood airbus' philosophy regarding manual flying.
I heard, at some point during the mcc, that the industry had kind of changed its mind about automation : aware that manual flying skills erode, airbus and airlines reckoned that pilots need to train regularly in real conditions, not just twice a year in the sim.
But then, when it comes to practise, it seems to me that nothing is done to promote the practise of manual flying.
Pilots usually ask each other "are you available ?" before turning AP off, because it is commonly agreed that if the PF flies manual, it will increase the PM workload.
But does it really have to ? In theory, if the sole difference was that the PF is hand flying, instead of flying through the FCU, and if he's a decent pilot, then the PM would have strictly no increase in workload : he's monitoring the same result, a trajectory that's correctly flown.
But, there is an increase in crew workload for the PM because the PM has to select FCU targets, after having been ordered to do so by the PF.
- The first increase in crew workload is the manual flying for the PF, and it is the only one that is really necessary (it is also the only one desired since it's training) but there are others :
- The PM now has to manipulate the FCU. This is a slight increase in workload and I found that it works very well in the sim and also in the air
- But there can be some problems when ATC comes into play. There is constant chatter to listen to, so it can slow down communication. You hear your company name every 5 seconds, you stop for 1 second to ensure it's not you. If it's you, then the PM will have to answer and this is now several seconds during which the PF capacity to modify the FCU is severely impaired, since he's forbidden from doing it himself.
I found on many occasions that it would have been much much easier to just rotate myself the FCU, than having to wait several seconds that the conversation was over.
Since manual flying is mostly interesting while in the departure and approach phases, in a real environment, there will be much chatter, so this problem can happen quite often in the aircraft.
Yes, in many cases it will be completely manageable, but I still find that this is an increase in crew workload, sometimes significant.
It seems to me that forbidding the PF to set his FCU himself is actually adding workload. Especially on an Airbus that a very stable flight control laws, it would be completely manageable to take one second to turn a button, then annouce it (just like under AP)
The PF could also ask the PM if he finds the situation is appropriate. Just like the lights when entering/exiting a runway, in my airline.
To sum up, it looks like forbidding the PF from setting his own FCU at all times does not help, it sometimes increases workload a little, sometimes a lot, and this problem could be solved very easily.
So, why is it like this then ?
How is it managed on the boeing side : can the PF modify the FCU himself while in manual flying ?
Thank you
I started flying on the line this february, after having done the multi crew training in october of last year, on the bus.
To this date, I still haven't fully understood airbus' philosophy regarding manual flying.
I heard, at some point during the mcc, that the industry had kind of changed its mind about automation : aware that manual flying skills erode, airbus and airlines reckoned that pilots need to train regularly in real conditions, not just twice a year in the sim.
But then, when it comes to practise, it seems to me that nothing is done to promote the practise of manual flying.
Pilots usually ask each other "are you available ?" before turning AP off, because it is commonly agreed that if the PF flies manual, it will increase the PM workload.
But does it really have to ? In theory, if the sole difference was that the PF is hand flying, instead of flying through the FCU, and if he's a decent pilot, then the PM would have strictly no increase in workload : he's monitoring the same result, a trajectory that's correctly flown.
But, there is an increase in crew workload for the PM because the PM has to select FCU targets, after having been ordered to do so by the PF.
- The first increase in crew workload is the manual flying for the PF, and it is the only one that is really necessary (it is also the only one desired since it's training) but there are others :
- The PM now has to manipulate the FCU. This is a slight increase in workload and I found that it works very well in the sim and also in the air
- But there can be some problems when ATC comes into play. There is constant chatter to listen to, so it can slow down communication. You hear your company name every 5 seconds, you stop for 1 second to ensure it's not you. If it's you, then the PM will have to answer and this is now several seconds during which the PF capacity to modify the FCU is severely impaired, since he's forbidden from doing it himself.
I found on many occasions that it would have been much much easier to just rotate myself the FCU, than having to wait several seconds that the conversation was over.
Since manual flying is mostly interesting while in the departure and approach phases, in a real environment, there will be much chatter, so this problem can happen quite often in the aircraft.
Yes, in many cases it will be completely manageable, but I still find that this is an increase in crew workload, sometimes significant.
It seems to me that forbidding the PF to set his FCU himself is actually adding workload. Especially on an Airbus that a very stable flight control laws, it would be completely manageable to take one second to turn a button, then annouce it (just like under AP)
The PF could also ask the PM if he finds the situation is appropriate. Just like the lights when entering/exiting a runway, in my airline.
To sum up, it looks like forbidding the PF from setting his own FCU at all times does not help, it sometimes increases workload a little, sometimes a lot, and this problem could be solved very easily.
So, why is it like this then ?
How is it managed on the boeing side : can the PF modify the FCU himself while in manual flying ?
Thank you
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just apply a degree of pragmatism.
The time to discuss manual flying is probably at the briefing stage before descent, not the moment you disconnect the autopilot.
Agree a method for doing this - provided it's briefed and not explicitly forbidden by your ops manual, there are many ways to skin a cat. I usually brief that I'd like PM to make the changes immediately on hearing the instruction from ATC, and I'll verify it from the FMA / PFD. Consider doing it FD off so you don't have to keep asking PM to fiddle with vertical speeds / FPA angles etc, just headings / altitudes.
Ultimately if you're in a particularly busy environment as you describe, perhaps it's not the best time for manual flying?
The time to discuss manual flying is probably at the briefing stage before descent, not the moment you disconnect the autopilot.
Agree a method for doing this - provided it's briefed and not explicitly forbidden by your ops manual, there are many ways to skin a cat. I usually brief that I'd like PM to make the changes immediately on hearing the instruction from ATC, and I'll verify it from the FMA / PFD. Consider doing it FD off so you don't have to keep asking PM to fiddle with vertical speeds / FPA angles etc, just headings / altitudes.
Ultimately if you're in a particularly busy environment as you describe, perhaps it's not the best time for manual flying?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree that there are many ways to skin a cat, and the way you describe seems okay.
But the FCTM (at least for my airline, but I don't think they specifically asked for this, it was the same during my MCC course with an other operator) clearly states that while manual flying only the PM touches the FCU. There is a big "NO" here (airbus operational philosophy / tasksharing rules and comms/ FCU/AFS and EFIS control panels) : I'm not comfortable with disregarding what's clearly written in the manual.
The only things the PF can do are engaging AP and ATHR.
And there are also cases where the PF makes changes that are not instructed by ATC. The typical example is "cleared for visual approach", then the PF has to select headings and altitudes by himself, according to exterior conditions.
Another example is if there is variable wind. One could want to fine tune heading bug degree per degree according to the wind to account for the drift angle as precisely as possible.
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD.
So, what the rule effectively did is prevent you from having a correct heading bug, you now have a runway heading bug and have to visually measure the angle difference required. Not ideal.
(Aligning the diamond on the runway heading could work but it doesn't since the diamond can be off by a few degrees, it's apparently not GPS-fed)
"Ultimately if you're in a particularly busy environment as you describe, perhaps it's not the best time for manual flying?"
During initial training you're supposed to handle an NDB approach, one engine inoperative, all checks and comms all by yourself and without AP, and now a little chatter on the frequency is too much workload ?
If you don't practise manual flying skills if there is just a bit of chatter on the radio, you're never going to practise them. But it's exactly the one thing that can unduly increase crew workload.
But the FCTM (at least for my airline, but I don't think they specifically asked for this, it was the same during my MCC course with an other operator) clearly states that while manual flying only the PM touches the FCU. There is a big "NO" here (airbus operational philosophy / tasksharing rules and comms/ FCU/AFS and EFIS control panels) : I'm not comfortable with disregarding what's clearly written in the manual.
The only things the PF can do are engaging AP and ATHR.
And there are also cases where the PF makes changes that are not instructed by ATC. The typical example is "cleared for visual approach", then the PF has to select headings and altitudes by himself, according to exterior conditions.
Another example is if there is variable wind. One could want to fine tune heading bug degree per degree according to the wind to account for the drift angle as precisely as possible.
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD.
So, what the rule effectively did is prevent you from having a correct heading bug, you now have a runway heading bug and have to visually measure the angle difference required. Not ideal.
(Aligning the diamond on the runway heading could work but it doesn't since the diamond can be off by a few degrees, it's apparently not GPS-fed)
"Ultimately if you're in a particularly busy environment as you describe, perhaps it's not the best time for manual flying?"
During initial training you're supposed to handle an NDB approach, one engine inoperative, all checks and comms all by yourself and without AP, and now a little chatter on the frequency is too much workload ?
If you don't practise manual flying skills if there is just a bit of chatter on the radio, you're never going to practise them. But it's exactly the one thing that can unduly increase crew workload.
Last edited by KayPam; 15th Aug 2020 at 17:04.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First thing in airbus is not make your own procedures. When you start something new you will not be in comfort zone immediately. I don't like to use the word multitasking but one gets used to doing Many things simultaneously by prioritizing. SOPs are with some purpose, made for a design philosophy, and with experience. As FF said some airfields, some situations are not suitable for increasing workload by manual flying.
.
.
Last edited by vilas; 15th Aug 2020 at 17:13.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilas : I specifically told I don't want to routinely violate the SOP. It's very obvious for everybody why.
If I'm asked to do something in an uncomfortable way, I will do it uncomfortably, I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
You can prioritize tasks, like when you order flaps or gear instead of the PM responding to ATC, but you still have some workload (sentences to say) which we could very well do without.
If I'm asked to do something in an uncomfortable way, I will do it uncomfortably, I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
You can prioritize tasks, like when you order flaps or gear instead of the PM responding to ATC, but you still have some workload (sentences to say) which we could very well do without.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Vilas : I specifically told I don't want to routinely violate the SOP. It's very obvious for everybody why.
If I'm asked to do something in an uncomfortable way, I will do it uncomfortably, I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
You can prioritize tasks, like when you order flaps or gear instead of the PM responding to ATC, but you still have some workload (sentences to say) which we could very well do without.
If I'm asked to do something in an uncomfortable way, I will do it uncomfortably, I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
You can prioritize tasks, like when you order flaps or gear instead of the PM responding to ATC, but you still have some workload (sentences to say) which we could very well do without.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: FL390
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
During initial training you're supposed to handle an NDB approach, one engine inoperative, all checks and comms all by yourself and without AP, and now a little chatter on the frequency is too much workload ?
The answer to your question is that Boeing has exactly the same task sharing philosophy when it comes to the MCP.
set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it's you, then the PM will have to answer and this is now several seconds during which the PF capacity to modify the FCU is severely impaired, since he's forbidden from doing it himself.
Why do you have to wait for the PM to set the FCU? If ATC gives you a vector, can’t you execute it while waiting for the PM to catch up? Why not just turn off the FD?
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD
Another great time to just turn the FD off, as it increases workload.
I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
I don’t fly a Boeing, but I’m on the other side of the Atlantic. First of all, there’s a lot less chatter in the cockpit. Previous company read FMA’s. The other companies here don’t. The only FCU change that is spoken out loud here in the US is altitude. I don’t know of any company that reads out headings and speeds. In the same vein, I don’t know if any US company that says “check” or “checked” to every change. I’ve seen some videos on YouTube of European cockpits that are simply ridiculous. Everything’s “checked”.
Now I’ve learned that here, we’re probably more relaxed because language barriers aren’t really an issue. It seems your airline wants you to do a lot of talking to coordinate FCU changes. My simple solution would be to turn off the FD when flying manually.
Why do you have to wait for the PM to set the FCU? If ATC gives you a vector, can’t you execute it while waiting for the PM to catch up? Why not just turn off the FD?
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD
Another great time to just turn the FD off, as it increases workload.
I'm just questionning whether it's really justified, and wondering how it is the other side of the Atlantic at Boeing's.
I don’t fly a Boeing, but I’m on the other side of the Atlantic. First of all, there’s a lot less chatter in the cockpit. Previous company read FMA’s. The other companies here don’t. The only FCU change that is spoken out loud here in the US is altitude. I don’t know of any company that reads out headings and speeds. In the same vein, I don’t know if any US company that says “check” or “checked” to every change. I’ve seen some videos on YouTube of European cockpits that are simply ridiculous. Everything’s “checked”.
Now I’ve learned that here, we’re probably more relaxed because language barriers aren’t really an issue. It seems your airline wants you to do a lot of talking to coordinate FCU changes. My simple solution would be to turn off the FD when flying manually.
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE] Another example is if there is variable wind. One could want to fine tune heading bug degree per degree according to the wind to account for the drift angle as precisely as possible.
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD. [/QUOTE]
Why would you do it in HDG? TRK can save you all this unnecessary fiddle. If you speak drift, that by default means that you are following a track, not a heading. The A320 can self-correct appropriately for any wind in TRK mode.
As for manual flying, it is indeed important (and also quite enjoyable) to practice your handling skills frequently. The actual motor skills required to fly an A320 in normal law are not exactly impressive; however, having the correct distribution of attention and maintaining good situational awareness while flying manually can only be trained by actually flying manually. So, I'm not buying the opinion of some colleagues that the entire exercise of manual flight is useless "because it pretty much flies itself". It's important - however, it has to be done in the right way.
First, ask yourself whether the situation is appropriate. It's not the best idea to fly manually for extended periods of time in busy airspace with a lot of traffic and busy ATC, in poor weather, while being tired etc. However, if it's a reasonably nice day somewhere not too busy and you are both feeling alright - the next step is to agree on a common plan how to do it. Most of the people I have flown it by default assume that the AP will be engaged by about 1000 ft AGL on takeoff and disengaged somewhere below 1000 ft AGL on landing. So, if you want to fly manually up until FL100 - ask your Captain if he would mind it. Similarly, if you just want to disengage the AP a bit early on a standard ILS - just ask if it's OK to do so. However, if you want to do a raw-data ILS in manual flight, there are also some additional items you need to include in your briefing. This one is usually an early stabilised approach instead of a decelerated one - which needs to be briefed. Some companies prohibit combining raw-data flying with manual thrust, so be on top of your OM-B. Also, on some old aircraft the FDs will not engage automatically when setting TOGA on a missed approach - and that needs to be mentioned in the briefing as well.
So, in a nutshell, the safety rules are - assess whether the situation is suitable for manual flying, agree on a common plan with the other crew member, assess and brief appropriately any peculiarities. As long as you do that and don't violate anything written in the books, you should be fine.
But obviously, asking the PM "two degrees left, no one degree right, etc.." would be too much time consuming (whereas adjusting heading bug alone in a single pilot operation is just the normal way of doing things and very easy), so you end up asking "set runway heading" and visualise a drift on the PFD. [/QUOTE]
Why would you do it in HDG? TRK can save you all this unnecessary fiddle. If you speak drift, that by default means that you are following a track, not a heading. The A320 can self-correct appropriately for any wind in TRK mode.
As for manual flying, it is indeed important (and also quite enjoyable) to practice your handling skills frequently. The actual motor skills required to fly an A320 in normal law are not exactly impressive; however, having the correct distribution of attention and maintaining good situational awareness while flying manually can only be trained by actually flying manually. So, I'm not buying the opinion of some colleagues that the entire exercise of manual flight is useless "because it pretty much flies itself". It's important - however, it has to be done in the right way.
First, ask yourself whether the situation is appropriate. It's not the best idea to fly manually for extended periods of time in busy airspace with a lot of traffic and busy ATC, in poor weather, while being tired etc. However, if it's a reasonably nice day somewhere not too busy and you are both feeling alright - the next step is to agree on a common plan how to do it. Most of the people I have flown it by default assume that the AP will be engaged by about 1000 ft AGL on takeoff and disengaged somewhere below 1000 ft AGL on landing. So, if you want to fly manually up until FL100 - ask your Captain if he would mind it. Similarly, if you just want to disengage the AP a bit early on a standard ILS - just ask if it's OK to do so. However, if you want to do a raw-data ILS in manual flight, there are also some additional items you need to include in your briefing. This one is usually an early stabilised approach instead of a decelerated one - which needs to be briefed. Some companies prohibit combining raw-data flying with manual thrust, so be on top of your OM-B. Also, on some old aircraft the FDs will not engage automatically when setting TOGA on a missed approach - and that needs to be mentioned in the briefing as well.
So, in a nutshell, the safety rules are - assess whether the situation is suitable for manual flying, agree on a common plan with the other crew member, assess and brief appropriately any peculiarities. As long as you do that and don't violate anything written in the books, you should be fine.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you have to wait for the PM to set the FCU? If ATC gives you a vector, can’t you execute it while waiting for the PM to catch up? Why not just turn off the FD?
Another great time to just turn the FD off, as it increases workload.
I don’t fly a Boeing, but I’m on the other side of the Atlantic. First of all, there’s a lot less chatter in the cockpit. Previous company read FMA’s. The other companies here don’t. The only FCU change that is spoken out loud here in the US is altitude. I don’t know of any company that reads out headings and speeds. In the same vein, I don’t know if any US company that says “check” or “checked” to every change. I’ve seen some videos on YouTube of European cockpits that are simply ridiculous. Everything’s “checked”.
Now I’ve learned that here, we’re probably more relaxed because language barriers aren’t really an issue. It seems your airline wants you to do a lot of talking to coordinate FCU changes. My simple solution would be to turn off the FD when flying manually.
Another great time to just turn the FD off, as it increases workload.
I don’t fly a Boeing, but I’m on the other side of the Atlantic. First of all, there’s a lot less chatter in the cockpit. Previous company read FMA’s. The other companies here don’t. The only FCU change that is spoken out loud here in the US is altitude. I don’t know of any company that reads out headings and speeds. In the same vein, I don’t know if any US company that says “check” or “checked” to every change. I’ve seen some videos on YouTube of European cockpits that are simply ridiculous. Everything’s “checked”.
Now I’ve learned that here, we’re probably more relaxed because language barriers aren’t really an issue. It seems your airline wants you to do a lot of talking to coordinate FCU changes. My simple solution would be to turn off the FD when flying manually.
In order :
You could fly FD's off and act according to what should be done even if the PM does not have time to do or even hear the adjustment order, but now you're breaking another rule which is to not fly outside of targets.
With FD off, you have a heading bug that appears on the PFD. You can measure the required drift angle visually, but the advantage of this heading bug is to align heading on the bug, not at a slightly different value.. So there are two possibilities that could be used, depending on personal preference and circumstances, but airbus rules, in practise, imposes one possibility, because the other is very unpractical.
That's the very interesting part. During my MCC you had to call all white modes. Now at my airline, we have to call all white and blue modes. So imagine saying "thrust idle open descent alt blue glide slope blue three thousand blue heading 180 loc blue cat III dual AP1+2"...
Turning off the FD erases some of the necessary callouts but not all of them. And this would be another example of having to do differently than we would judge best appropriate just because of this little rule that the PF can't touch the FCU.
So you can't really order something while he's receiving or reading back a message, he might miss some parts.
In any case, I don't understand the root reason why you should order any FCU change.. To avoid even a third of a second of looking away from the PFD ?
Reducing PF workload does not seem a valid argument to me.
Rotating a knob uses very little ressource, sometimes much less than listening the coms to know when the order will be correctly received, see previous quote.
It's a shame that for a lot of pilots these days this is such a big deal. In the days before automated airplanes the work load for both pilots was much higher so manipulating the MCP and talking on the radio seems pretty easy. So is flying a plane that trims itself.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt that 30 years ago, the answers to this topic would have been "you are worried about a non-problem, just touch your FCU when and how you like it, you can also ask your PNF"
Before FMGS, the workload was real. Someone had to tune the VORs and courses, monitor the DMEs and needles, etc.. but what I'm talking about is an artifical workload that's due to a rule which we could very well do without.
If tomorrow Airbus decides that one crew member has to rotate the knob, and the other has to push or pull it, in order to force both crew members to fully agree on the FCU selection, that could also unduly increase crew workload and that would be completely artificial as well.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could fly FD's off and act according to what should be done even if the PM does not have time to do or even hear the adjustment order, but now you're breaking another rule which is to not fly outside of targets.
You can measure the required drift angle visually, but the advantage of this heading bug is to align heading on the bug, not at a slightly different value..
That's the very interesting part. During my MCC you had to call all white modes. Now at my airline, we have to call all white and blue modes. So imagine saying "thrust idle open descent alt blue glide slope blue three thousand blue heading 180 loc blue cat III dual AP1+2"...
I hated reading out all that (minus the values) when it was my leg. Be pragmatic instead of pedantic. If you call for gear down and flap 3, then ATC calls just as the PM is moving the lever, you can reach up and push for managed speed yourself. Alternatively, you can start slowing before the speed bug has been reset. At least on this side of the Atlantic, nobody’s gonna have anything to say about that. Step one of the SOP is to fly the plane!
In order to transmit correctly a message (like "set heading 350"), the receiver should be ready.
So you can't really order something while he's receiving or reading back a message, he might miss some parts.
So you can't really order something while he's receiving or reading back a message, he might miss some parts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not following this. So ATC tells you to fly heading 350. Your company wants the PM to wait until the PF orders the heading change? Why wouldn’t the PM just dial it in immediately?
See, that's exactly my point. "Why wouldn’t the PM (or PF?) just dial it in immediately?"
Maybe I did not make myself very clear..
Yes, the standard procedure, would be :
ATC : "XYZ fly heading 350"
PM : "fly heading 350 XYZ"
PF, if flying manual : "please set heading 350"
PM : sets heading 350, can tell something or not (this step would be done by the PF if AP was on)
PF : "350 blue"
PM : "checked"
So now imagine ATC saying "fly heading 350" + a bunch of other things. Since there is also a rule saying you can't fly outside of a target (yes there is, there are all sorts of rules like this at my airlines, and I think many airlines because our FCOM is close to the standard airbus one), you have to wait the end of the message + readback before you can do anything.
Other rules that I find surprising are :
- If you land with ATHR on you have to retard it fully from climb to idle
I was told that this causes problems to some pilots because of the difference between autothrust and to autothrust. Retarding with ATHR on (climb gate) takes more time, so there can be a tendancy to retard half a second late (because initially, when you reduce from climb to 50% nothing happens). One very easy solution to this problem would be to retard in two times, reduce from climb to the correct thrust at around 50ft, then idle, but that's strictly forbidden because :
- You can't disengage autothrust below 1000ft.
So if you wanted to reduce workload while decelerating between 1000ft and 500ft (VMC stabilization criteria) and then disengage autothrust, you can't.
- Nothing to do with manual flying, but when asked for ECAM actions, the PM must specifically not start the ECAM actions, he has to think about OEBs or company instructions, and perforrm them if there are some. A very simple solution would be to replace 'ecam actions' by 'failure actions' or any other callout that would not induce specifically into something that's possibly an error.
I think this last one is the perfect example of weird things imposed by the manuals.
Not sure where this idea is coming from. As another poster alluded to earlier, on an ILS for example, I’ll just set the heading bug to the runway heading, so more often than not, it isn’t centred.
Theoretically, all solutions could be possible.
Heading bug or track bug, and align the bird on the RWY track bug or the heading bug on a wind-corrected runway heading, or even visually offsetting the heading with regard to the runway heading (most common solution)
But my point is that the PF cannot even do something as simple as adjusting one or two degrees on his heading bug, if he wants to correct for wind drift or IRS drift.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,514
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See, that's exactly my point. "Why wouldn’t the PM (or PF?) just dial it in immediately?"
Maybe I did not make myself very clear..
Yes, the standard procedure, would be :
ATC : "XYZ fly heading 350"
PM : "fly heading 350 XYZ"
PF, if flying manual : "please set heading 350"
PM : sets heading 350, can tell something or not (this step would be done by the PF if AP was on)
PF : "350 blue"
PM : "checked"
So now imagine ATC saying "fly heading 350" + a bunch of other things. Since there is also a rule saying you can't fly outside of a target (yes there is, there are all sorts of rules like this at my airlines, and I think many airlines because our FCOM is close to the standard airbus one), you have to wait the end of the message + readback before you can do anything.
Other rules that I find surprising are :
- If you land with ATHR on you have to retard it fully from climb to idle
I was told that this causes problems to some pilots because of the difference between autothrust and to autothrust. Retarding with ATHR on (climb gate) takes more time, so there can be a tendancy to retard half a second late (because initially, when you reduce from climb to 50% nothing happens). One very easy solution to this problem would be to retard in two times, reduce from climb to the correct thrust at around 50ft, then idle, but that's strictly forbidden because :
- You can't disengage autothrust below 1000ft.
So if you wanted to reduce workload while decelerating between 1000ft and 500ft (VMC stabilization criteria) and then disengage autothrust, you can't.
- Nothing to do with manual flying, but when asked for ECAM actions, the PM must specifically not start the ECAM actions, he has to think about OEBs or company instructions, and perforrm them if there are some. A very simple solution would be to replace 'ecam actions' by 'failure actions' or any other callout that would not induce specifically into something that's possibly an error.
I think this last one is the perfect example of weird things imposed by the manuals.
Theoretically, all solutions could be possible.
Heading bug or track bug, and align the bird on the RWY track bug or the heading bug on a wind-corrected runway heading, or even visually offsetting the heading with regard to the runway heading (most common solution)
But my point is that the PF cannot even do something as simple as adjusting one or two degrees on his heading bug, if he wants to correct for wind drift or IRS drift.
Maybe I did not make myself very clear..
Yes, the standard procedure, would be :
ATC : "XYZ fly heading 350"
PM : "fly heading 350 XYZ"
PF, if flying manual : "please set heading 350"
PM : sets heading 350, can tell something or not (this step would be done by the PF if AP was on)
PF : "350 blue"
PM : "checked"
So now imagine ATC saying "fly heading 350" + a bunch of other things. Since there is also a rule saying you can't fly outside of a target (yes there is, there are all sorts of rules like this at my airlines, and I think many airlines because our FCOM is close to the standard airbus one), you have to wait the end of the message + readback before you can do anything.
Other rules that I find surprising are :
- If you land with ATHR on you have to retard it fully from climb to idle
I was told that this causes problems to some pilots because of the difference between autothrust and to autothrust. Retarding with ATHR on (climb gate) takes more time, so there can be a tendancy to retard half a second late (because initially, when you reduce from climb to 50% nothing happens). One very easy solution to this problem would be to retard in two times, reduce from climb to the correct thrust at around 50ft, then idle, but that's strictly forbidden because :
- You can't disengage autothrust below 1000ft.
So if you wanted to reduce workload while decelerating between 1000ft and 500ft (VMC stabilization criteria) and then disengage autothrust, you can't.
- Nothing to do with manual flying, but when asked for ECAM actions, the PM must specifically not start the ECAM actions, he has to think about OEBs or company instructions, and perforrm them if there are some. A very simple solution would be to replace 'ecam actions' by 'failure actions' or any other callout that would not induce specifically into something that's possibly an error.
I think this last one is the perfect example of weird things imposed by the manuals.
Theoretically, all solutions could be possible.
Heading bug or track bug, and align the bird on the RWY track bug or the heading bug on a wind-corrected runway heading, or even visually offsetting the heading with regard to the runway heading (most common solution)
But my point is that the PF cannot even do something as simple as adjusting one or two degrees on his heading bug, if he wants to correct for wind drift or IRS drift.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sussex
Posts: 166
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.