Crew workload in manual flying
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, If I am conducting an ILS on a very windy, choppy day, I will hand-fly it from a long way out in order to get my responses up to speed, so that at around 4-5 miles, I am totally in the groove and able to deal with whatever the wind throws at me. I do NOT take the AP out just before minimums !!! and nor was I suggesting that.
Regarding practicing hand-flying in poor weather or busy airspace; yes of course you can, but you must remember that you will massively increase PM's workload, and airlines are commercial operations. If pilots violated noise abatement or made errors in busy airspace because they were hand-flying, the chief pilot might have something to say. Practice in sensible conditions, but never be afraid of hand-flying turbulent approaches. Better to do so a long way out and get into the groove than disconnect at 400' and only then discover how much the AP was coping !!
Regarding practicing hand-flying in poor weather or busy airspace; yes of course you can, but you must remember that you will massively increase PM's workload, and airlines are commercial operations. If pilots violated noise abatement or made errors in busy airspace because they were hand-flying, the chief pilot might have something to say. Practice in sensible conditions, but never be afraid of hand-flying turbulent approaches. Better to do so a long way out and get into the groove than disconnect at 400' and only then discover how much the AP was coping !!
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Dubai
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
But does it really have to ?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm just worried about rules with poor justifications. And I also don't like breaking rules. If there is no rule with poor justification there is no breaking this rule, so that would be ideal.
Little violations? Probably. My last flight, I was PF. In the climb with the AP off, as the captain made a PA, we were cleared to our requested cruise altitude. I read it back, and set the FCU. Later on, while the captain was having his dinner, I responded to a radio call, tuned the new frequency and contacted the next sector, with nary a word from the captain. Would my disregard for SOP have caused me to fail a line check at your company?
The workload is easy for PF, what some don't realise though, is how much it increases PM's workload. Have you taken off from say Luton, into and across the London TMA during a very busy period and with CBs around?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Age: 40
Posts: 433
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kay Pam
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.
Last edited by vilas; 16th Aug 2020 at 18:05.
In our business there should always be enough room for improvement.
Some operators do it that way, others do it different as learned in this thread.
At least I did.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KayPam,
How would your company fly an approach like this?
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2009/00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF
How would your company fly an approach like this?
https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2009/00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kay Pam
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.
Questionable items in the SOP will always be a thing. One example which caused a lot of controversy amongst colleagues in an airline I used to work for was why the PF was not required to hand over the controls for the approach briefing. And, when the matter was voiced appropriately, the DFO gave a really good explanation which ended the dispute once and forever. The reason was that, in this way, the PF effectively remained head-up and monitoring the flight path while briefing the approach from the ND. And it was much better than the PM having the controls while being focused on his tablet to cross-check the arrival against the chart. Once people understood that, nobody said anything against it ever again. So, a little discussion may often be useful to resolve any questionable matters. Certainly better than people quietly doing their own thing while nobody is watching.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see the problem with flying 'through' the FD in the short term. The FD tells you where you need to be to follow the current settings on the FCU. However, if those settings are no longer valid, and PM is busy with an important task; then I will fly a different heading and ignore the heading bar of the FD while still following the pitch bar
Isn't that getting a bit "gimmicky" flying 'through' the FD? Either use it properly when needed for guidance or switch it out of sight. There are times when pilots want an uncluttered artificial horizon. Recovering from an unusual attitude in IMC is one such example.
Already the borders of the PFD are surrounded by a plethora of information. Some pilots have no trouble ignoring unwanted FD indications. Others can be seriously distracted by the waving needles. The problem being that flight directors tend to encourage tunnel vision as after all the aim is to keep the needles centred on one tiny spot.on the dial.
I recently talked to a F/O of a Middle Eastern A330 airline where company SOP mandates engagement of the autopilot at 500 ft after take off. From then on it would be left engaged (no hand flying permitted) until 300 ft on final approach even if fully visual. On this occasion he was safety F/O in the jump seat while a new F/O was undergoing line training. During one final approach in CAVOK the new F/O switched off the AP at 1000 ft on final to fly the remainder of the approach manually.
The captain instantly demanded the autopilot be re-engaged since the company SOP required 300 ft for disengagement. The startled F/O under training fiddled around and managed to re-engage the autopilot. A few seconds later as the aircraft passed through 300 ft, the captain announced "NOW you can disengaged the autopilot."
Apparently the captain was worried the QAR would pick up the autopilot disengagement at 1000 ft which was contrary to the company SOP and he would be hauled up to please explain.
With some airlines, common sense is thrown out of the window to satisfy the Gods of SOP. And that happens in so many other aspects of flight deck operation.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't that getting a bit "gimmicky" flying 'through' the FD? Either use it properly when needed for guidance or switch it out of sight. There are times when pilots want an uncluttered artificial horizon. Recovering from an unusual attitude in IMC is one such example.
Already the borders of the PFD are surrounded by a plethora of information. Some pilots have no trouble ignoring unwanted FD indications. Others can be seriously distracted by the waving needles. The problem being that flight directors tend to encourage tunnel vision as after all the aim is to keep the needles centred on one tiny spot.on the dial.
I recently talked to a F/O of a Middle Eastern A330 airline where company SOP mandates engagement of the autopilot at 500 ft after take off. From then on it would be left engaged (no hand flying permitted) until 300 ft on final approach even if fully visual. On this occasion he was safety F/O in the jump seat while a new F/O was undergoing line training. During one final approach in CAVOK the new F/O switched off the AP at 1000 ft on final to fly the remainder of the approach manually.
The captain instantly demanded the autopilot be re-engaged since the company SOP required 300 ft for disengagement. The startled F/O under training fiddled around and managed to re-engage the autopilot. A few seconds later as the aircraft passed through 300 ft, the captain announced "NOW you can disengaged the autopilot."
Apparently the captain was worried the QAR would pick up the autopilot disengagement at 1000 ft which was contrary to the company SOP and he would be hauled up to please explain.
With some airlines, common sense is thrown out of the window to satisfy the Gods of SOP. And that happens in so many other aspects of flight deck operation.
Already the borders of the PFD are surrounded by a plethora of information. Some pilots have no trouble ignoring unwanted FD indications. Others can be seriously distracted by the waving needles. The problem being that flight directors tend to encourage tunnel vision as after all the aim is to keep the needles centred on one tiny spot.on the dial.
I recently talked to a F/O of a Middle Eastern A330 airline where company SOP mandates engagement of the autopilot at 500 ft after take off. From then on it would be left engaged (no hand flying permitted) until 300 ft on final approach even if fully visual. On this occasion he was safety F/O in the jump seat while a new F/O was undergoing line training. During one final approach in CAVOK the new F/O switched off the AP at 1000 ft on final to fly the remainder of the approach manually.
The captain instantly demanded the autopilot be re-engaged since the company SOP required 300 ft for disengagement. The startled F/O under training fiddled around and managed to re-engage the autopilot. A few seconds later as the aircraft passed through 300 ft, the captain announced "NOW you can disengaged the autopilot."
Apparently the captain was worried the QAR would pick up the autopilot disengagement at 1000 ft which was contrary to the company SOP and he would be hauled up to please explain.
With some airlines, common sense is thrown out of the window to satisfy the Gods of SOP. And that happens in so many other aspects of flight deck operation.
What copmpany in the ME has that dangerous SOP? I'd like to know, so I can avoid them. Is it the one that shall not be mentioned?
Moderator
Quite a fascinating thread.
Caveats.
I have some experience in a number of sandpits but not the level of flying experience represented by many of our PPRuNe colleagues. As well, I came into the flying game when a more rigorous level of discipline was being established but not then to the extent that we see in recent years.
These days, the legal animal is ever present so any activity must, necessarily, be tempered by thoughts of discussions, challenges, and consequences in a different arena.
One significant factor is that the general starting age of airline folks probably is a little younger and with substantially less aviation experience than it was in years gone by ? By itself this is not a major problem but does require that the operating entity’s control over (new) pilot development is reasonably rigorous. We can see this in the military environment where the increasing level of imposed discipline over recent decades has resulted in a significant reduction in hull losses and fatalities – certainly within the Australian environment.
Many opine that traffic densities and airspace complexities are now such that rigour and procedural prescription are both inevitable and essential – I don’t profess to have the answers to that one although I posit that there have always been busy locations with which one had to contend ?
My thoughts, just for whatever they may be worth ..
I think the main philosophical catchcry need be something along the lines of “horses for courses”. I recall when I transitioned to the B733, the then boss was a wise chap (and one of those natural “born with the stick in his hand” types – was I envious ? of course I was) who, after a period of Type introduction, took the view that we were free to emphasise either the manual and/or the automatic, but need know and be competent with both, while taking care not to embarrass ourselves (or him, either, I guess).
While I have always inclined to the manual flying practice attitude, it didn’t take me long to realise (the -300 being my first somewhat automatic machine) that one could, quite easily, get out of one’s depth, particularly when significantly fatigued for whatever reason – horses for courses, again ?
Some of us would definitely emphasise the automatics, others would hand fly sectors, raw data, no auto throttle, essentially single pilot, the other guy watching with an appropriate level of interest, from takeoff to landing, to hone the hand tool skills. Did this greatly increase the workload on the monitoring pilot ? With an appropriate discussion at the start, it didn’t appear to do so. One thing did ensue, that being that we gained a high level of feel for what the aircraft would do while being reasonably conservative in one’s personal discipline.
Some for instances,
(a) check flight – severe blue day, 50 odd miles to run straight in. modest traffic. Checkie turned all the gadgets off (including aids) on my side so it was a real do-it-yourself visual approach from 20-odd thousand feet. Difficult ? Not really, certainly interesting (and totally unannounced), but one had to keep the brain thinking all the way in … (722 on that occasion).
(b) line flight, training captain asked did I have any idea of how steep a sensible approach could be conducted from the mid-twenties ? No ? Try dirty one in a mile. Worked out fine, gear, then flaps at 20. Again, had to keep the wits about me.
(c) DRW to CNS, severe blue day, howling westerly so CNS was going to be more than a tad rough in the lower levels. Over the upwind end at around 12000-13000 ft, steep descending circuit over the water and land into the north. Not a problem at all.
And so one could continue to recite relevant anecdotes from years gone by.
Would we have done these sorts of interesting things on a dirty night at the end of a long duty period ? Of course not – horses for courses.
Did we learn a bit about the capabilities of our steed ? Sure did.
What should be the approach ? Probably not for me to pontificate other than to observe – horses for courses.
Caveats.
I have some experience in a number of sandpits but not the level of flying experience represented by many of our PPRuNe colleagues. As well, I came into the flying game when a more rigorous level of discipline was being established but not then to the extent that we see in recent years.
These days, the legal animal is ever present so any activity must, necessarily, be tempered by thoughts of discussions, challenges, and consequences in a different arena.
One significant factor is that the general starting age of airline folks probably is a little younger and with substantially less aviation experience than it was in years gone by ? By itself this is not a major problem but does require that the operating entity’s control over (new) pilot development is reasonably rigorous. We can see this in the military environment where the increasing level of imposed discipline over recent decades has resulted in a significant reduction in hull losses and fatalities – certainly within the Australian environment.
Many opine that traffic densities and airspace complexities are now such that rigour and procedural prescription are both inevitable and essential – I don’t profess to have the answers to that one although I posit that there have always been busy locations with which one had to contend ?
My thoughts, just for whatever they may be worth ..
I think the main philosophical catchcry need be something along the lines of “horses for courses”. I recall when I transitioned to the B733, the then boss was a wise chap (and one of those natural “born with the stick in his hand” types – was I envious ? of course I was) who, after a period of Type introduction, took the view that we were free to emphasise either the manual and/or the automatic, but need know and be competent with both, while taking care not to embarrass ourselves (or him, either, I guess).
While I have always inclined to the manual flying practice attitude, it didn’t take me long to realise (the -300 being my first somewhat automatic machine) that one could, quite easily, get out of one’s depth, particularly when significantly fatigued for whatever reason – horses for courses, again ?
Some of us would definitely emphasise the automatics, others would hand fly sectors, raw data, no auto throttle, essentially single pilot, the other guy watching with an appropriate level of interest, from takeoff to landing, to hone the hand tool skills. Did this greatly increase the workload on the monitoring pilot ? With an appropriate discussion at the start, it didn’t appear to do so. One thing did ensue, that being that we gained a high level of feel for what the aircraft would do while being reasonably conservative in one’s personal discipline.
Some for instances,
(a) check flight – severe blue day, 50 odd miles to run straight in. modest traffic. Checkie turned all the gadgets off (including aids) on my side so it was a real do-it-yourself visual approach from 20-odd thousand feet. Difficult ? Not really, certainly interesting (and totally unannounced), but one had to keep the brain thinking all the way in … (722 on that occasion).
(b) line flight, training captain asked did I have any idea of how steep a sensible approach could be conducted from the mid-twenties ? No ? Try dirty one in a mile. Worked out fine, gear, then flaps at 20. Again, had to keep the wits about me.
(c) DRW to CNS, severe blue day, howling westerly so CNS was going to be more than a tad rough in the lower levels. Over the upwind end at around 12000-13000 ft, steep descending circuit over the water and land into the north. Not a problem at all.
And so one could continue to recite relevant anecdotes from years gone by.
Would we have done these sorts of interesting things on a dirty night at the end of a long duty period ? Of course not – horses for courses.
Did we learn a bit about the capabilities of our steed ? Sure did.
What should be the approach ? Probably not for me to pontificate other than to observe – horses for courses.
Isn't that getting a bit "gimmicky" flying 'through' the FD? Either use it properly when needed for guidance or switch it out of sight. There are times when pilots want an uncluttered artificial horizon. Recovering from an unusual attitude in IMC is one such example.
Already the borders of the PFD are surrounded by a plethora of information. Some pilots have no trouble ignoring unwanted FD indications. Others can be seriously distracted by the waving needles. The problem being that flight directors tend to encourage tunnel vision........
Already the borders of the PFD are surrounded by a plethora of information. Some pilots have no trouble ignoring unwanted FD indications. Others can be seriously distracted by the waving needles. The problem being that flight directors tend to encourage tunnel vision........
Pilots should always "fly through" the flight directors - by which I mean you should always be looking at the pitch and roll presentation of the PFD, and any adjustment to the aircraft path should be by reference to this. Pilots must always refer to the pitch and bank presentation, and only regard the FD as a suggestion for guidance. Unusual attitudes? look only at pitch, bank, and speed, ignore all else. This should be instinctive.
The FD is an advisory instrument, and it should never be blindly followed. Doing so has caused accidents, and one must always look through it to confirm the actual pitch and bank of the aircraft, and that the FD is offering sensible guidance.
As far as taking the FD out if you are not going to follow it. I thought I had explained my reasoning fairly clearly.
On two occasions in my commercial flying I have rotated and got airborne and then had to avoid birds. In both cases the FDs were on, as per SOPs, and were guiding the usual path: bank to follow the SID, pitch to follow SRS (pitch to maintain V2). At a few hundred feet, birds appeared ahead, flying across our path, and I instinctively 'ducked' the aircraft underneath them to avoid damage to our pitot probes or ingesting the birds into an engine. There was no time to request "flight directors off", I just reacted as I needed to do, and ignored the flight director, since its indications were no longer appropriate at that precise moment. After passing under the birds, I gently resumed the FD guidance.
On another occasion during approach into Alicante, a banner towing aircraft - unknown and unseen by ATC radar - suddenly appeared off to our right flying across our path while PM was head down, dialling in tower frequency. Again, there was no time to follow SOPs, I simply avoided the aircraft and ignored the FD.
Regarding your so-called 'clutter' of the PFD, with a "plethora of information" and "waving needles" well, the A320, A321 and A330 that I fly (flew), have extremely well designed cockpit displays. Some say they are crude and old fashioned, but actually they have been very well thought out with only relevant information displayed, and they are very clear and easy to use. (I have not flown the A350). I have flown Boeing 737-300/400 though, and I found their displays awkward in terms of information layout and clutter.
Pilots should always "fly through" the flight directors - by which I mean you should always be looking at the pitch and roll presentation of the PFD, and any adjustment to the aircraft path should be by reference to this. Pilots must always refer to the pitch and bank presentation, and only regard the FD as a suggestion for guidance. Unusual attitudes? look only at pitch, bank, and speed, ignore all else. This should be instinctive.
The FD is an advisory instrument, and it should never be blindly followed. Doing so has caused accidents, and one must always look through it to confirm the actual pitch and bank of the aircraft, and that the FD is offering sensible guidance.
Bloody hell, this is hard work. 
I don't know how to explain it any simpler.
Fine, fly your aircraft with blind adherance to the FD if it makes you happy and you really think that's what you should do.
I started my commercial flying on an aircraft with no auto-pilot, no auto-thrust, and no flight directors. I still fly by reference to the pitch and bank indications, the speed tape and the N1/EPR gauges. Everything else on top of that is nice to have, reduces my workload and I use it, but the FD is not my primary reference. I can, and do, ignore one or both axes of it in the short term if I need to in order to fly the plane safely.
.
I don't know how to explain it any simpler.Fine, fly your aircraft with blind adherance to the FD if it makes you happy and you really think that's what you should do.
I started my commercial flying on an aircraft with no auto-pilot, no auto-thrust, and no flight directors. I still fly by reference to the pitch and bank indications, the speed tape and the N1/EPR gauges. Everything else on top of that is nice to have, reduces my workload and I use it, but the FD is not my primary reference. I can, and do, ignore one or both axes of it in the short term if I need to in order to fly the plane safely.
.
Last edited by Uplinker; 17th Aug 2020 at 11:16.
A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.