Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

Crew workload in manual flying

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

Crew workload in manual flying

Old 17th Aug 2020, 11:42
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Planet no. 3
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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.
Uhm, why not leave the AP in and turn the heading knob? When you colleague went to the loo you would have had an "all yours mate".
vlieger is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 12:08
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Horses for courses. I have also seen people briefly disengage the AP for some transient maneuver and I have done it myself. Not to mention that on the A320 this is the only way to make use of full speedbrake since it can only extend to 1/2 with the AP engaged. However, it's another matter that you shouldn't do it in cruise since you're in RVSM airspace where regulations require automatic FL keeping.
PilotLZ is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 13:10
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: FLSomething
Posts: 397
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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.
.
Would you not then just turn them off? Someone flying against the orders of flight directors at least on an Airbus is usually a red flag for being fatigued, drunk or crap.
VariablePitchP is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 13:21
  #84 (permalink)  

Only half a speed-brake
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Commuting not home
Age: 46
Posts: 4,303
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Because he's never advocated flying against the FDs, only that for short and immediate flight path adjustments a momentary deliberate and controlled runaway is no deadly sin.

That being said, after analysing thoroughly my last deviation from the lateral bar, in retrospective I wish to had shouted FD's OFF while disconnecting the AP and certainly plan to do so the next time.
FlightDetent is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 13:24
  #85 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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.
Why not turning the heading bug yourself ? Because you know you can follow a heading without the need for the bug ?
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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.
I fully agree with you.
But do you have at your airline some instructors who require "pixel perfect" following of the FDs ?

I find that in this debate, this article from an airbus test pilot would be very relevant, especially the quoted part :
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/t...df.php?p=25242
It would be interesting to survey pilots as to what they understand by the terms “fl ying manually”. Personally, I have often heard during test, demonstration, acceptance or airline fl ights, colleagues, young or older, airline pilots or test pilots, proudly say that they would do such or such a part of the fl ight - in general a complete approach followed by a landing - “in manual control mode”. I would then observe how they performed and saw that all they did was actually disconnect the AP and servilely follow the Flight Director, leaving the Auto Thrust engaged. And this until start of the flare. [...]
Flying in this manner can in no way be considered as “flying manually”. Indeed, the orders given to the flight controls by the pilot consist in setting the Flight Director (FD) bars to zero, which corresponds to the orders generated by the guidance function.
These stick inputs are actions done mechanically by the pilot but are in no way elaborated by him/her.
[...]
In other words, this exercise provides strictly nothing towards the manual flying training for the cases where the pilot would truly have to fly the aircraft manually.
KayPam is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 13:53
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Uplinker
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.
Sorry I did not get the reason why You should takeover manually if You are currently single pilot (PM went to the loo) ?
If ATC gives You a heading then yes they do expect a prompt acknowledgement/manoeuvre but You are not doing close air combat so left forefinger goes to the PTT and right hand to the HDG knob (or the other way around depends where You sit) and happy days !
sonicbum is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 14:05
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KayPam
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
Definitely plenty of good answers above. What I can tell You is that discussions on manual flying such as how much, how long, when, why, etc.. have been going on since I started flying the line, almost 3 decades ago. Usually "my" answer to the above would be : use the appropriate level of automation at all times ! (Yes I know I should pay copyright royalties to Airbus !)
Operator "A" wants You to be AP ON 24/7 ? Do as prescribed in the OM-A.
Operator "B" gives You more freedom ? Use common sense, agree with the other CM when/how to disconnect and fly the approach

Personal note : remember that in the end You are flying commercially paying pax/freight and first priority is the highest possible level of safety/lowest possible level of threats and errors.
If it's a stormy day out, You are in some busy European TMAs on a 4 tiring sectors day (there was a time) and Your colleague is not in his best day too, think twice before "do you mind if I go manual below 10'000 ft ? My OPC is coming up next week".

Common sense, that's it.
sonicbum is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 15:37
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You know, for all the debate here about terminology (flaps vs flap, positive rate vs positive climb, autothurust vs autothrottle) and how the name affects it’s use, I’m surprised nobody’s brought up that “Flight Director” is a poorly chosen term.


I guess some here have taken the term “director” quite literally. A more appropriate term would be “Flight Guidance Mode Pitch and Roll Solution Indicator”, but FGMPRSI doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as easily.


Uplinker has provided many examples of where the FGMPRSI should not be followed. If all you’re doing is keeping the FGMPRSI perfectly centred, how are you effectively scanning the instruments? Are you aware of your speed, altitude and heading, or were you aware that for a second there, you were 2 pixels below the FGMPRSI bar?
Check Airman is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 15:53
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KayPam
Why not turning the heading bug yourself ? Because you know you can follow a heading without the need for the bug ?

I fully agree with you.
But do you have at your airline some instructors who require "pixel perfect" following of the FDs ?

I find that in this debate, this article from an airbus test pilot would be very relevant, especially the quoted part :
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/t...df.php?p=25242
I think the rest of that paragraph needs to be posted:

The terms “flying manually” in this article imply that the guidance functions have become unavailable, possibly with the flight control laws in a degraded mode.

In this configuration, pilots must be able to correctly perform, at any altitude, all the maneuvers required to manually control the aircraft and land it under satisfactory safety conditions. These safety conditions would not be met if a pilot is not at ease when performing, under all flight control conditions which may be encountered following failures, manual flying without the FD, without the ATHR and without speed vector, from the cruise ceiling of the aircraft to instrument landing under CAT1 weather conditions.

The type certifications of all the commercial aircraft in the world are established by the Authorities on the fundamental hypothesis that any qualified pilot is capable of meeting this requirement.
It’s concerning that some here think that the FD is necessary to execute a level turn, and others program the FMS for visual approaches.

I’ve long thought that part of the problem in AF447 was the PF was trying desperately to centre the FD bars.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 16:15
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
pineteam is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 16:56
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pineteam
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
This one becomes especially entertaining when someone starts calculating an approximate length for the base leg to insert the turn from downwind to base as P/B/D from the final turn and "be more precise". Like, you pretend that you are being highly professional and precise, but nonetheless you do the exact opposite of what is written in your FCTM? Fair enough...
PilotLZ is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 17:33
  #92 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by pineteam
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
Yes, but one must reckon that having the right runway for landing is mandatory.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary.
Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem.

One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm.
KayPam is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 19:45
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KayPam
Yes, but one must reckon that having the right runway for landing is mandatory.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary.
Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem.

One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm.
What pineteam is describing is some people’s decision to program a visual pattern into the FMS.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 21:03
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by KayPam
Yes, but one must reckon that having the right runway for landing is mandatory.
If you look at the fcom, visual approach, you will notice they ask you to activate secondary.
Why is that ? If you're on final on rwy 27R, you can't perform a sidestep onto 27L except if it was briefed and prepared in secondary. Whereas for other aircraft it would not pose any problem.

One captain told me a valid reason : our operator (but not airbus) requires us to have at least one instrumental way of checking glide path (papi, or the CF on the a320, or glide, or any other means) and mainly because if there was a glide and you go for a runway that is closer, you may get spurrious too low glide alarm.
It's so GS Mini works properly.

If you're circling fron 27 to 09 and the wind is gusty 090/30G45 then if the aircraft thought it was a tailwind (when you finally get round to finals 09) it would add no GSmini delta and just sit at the standard Vapp. By activating the secondary with 09 in and the correct wind 090/30, it will give you the correct additional energy via GSmini. Those winds are obviously exagurated to make the point, circlign with 45kts up your chuff is probably a poor choice!

If you sidestep from 27L to 27R, apart from perhaps turning the GPWS G/S off and the usual FD's off, the wind will still be valid. Ok it might be SLIGHTLY different from one to the other, but not enough to really get that excited about.

Originally Posted by pineteam
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
Ignoring the fact that visual flight is indeed easy, I'm not sure that is the current rule. My operator says you may put points in the FMS (perhaps a route) to aid SA but obviously not to be flown using that guidance. If someone wants a line for their 2.5nm leg then they can fill their boots as far as I'm concerned. As long as you're visual, it isn't illegal to do that.
giggitygiggity is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 21:26
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Absolutely correct that building a visual pattern isn’t illegal, but from what I’ve read here, it seems people are using it as a crutch. As nice as I’m sure the guidance is, I can’t see myself ever being bothered to do that.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 21:29
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: expat
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Basic manual flying is easy because it's intuitive. Even more so with all the fly by wire assistance. Operating an airliner and continuously fully comprehending it's state and various modes is a whole different story. For this reason I'm not totally sold on encouraging the distraction of manual flying beyond the takeoff and landing phases. It does polish skills but in practice they only need to be at a certain basic level. In my opinion it's an emotionally appealing argument but in reality the risk vs reward doesn't stack up.
HPSOV L is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 22:14
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Amantido
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am not so sure I would agree with your statement.
When I started I flew a lot with the FD until one day I decided to fly raw data because the TRI I was flying with did one on the previous sector. Shambles

Scanning has to be practised regularly. And I do it quite often now, sometimes from above FL100 if the overall workload and airspace allows, and my overall confidence in handling the aircraft in a multi-crew environment increased a lot.
Banana Joe is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 22:40
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Europe
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It all boils down to one basic concept: confidence and proficiency in operating the aircraft with any level of automation, including manual flight, as deemed appropriate in the situation. Good manual flying skills are no excuse for not being able to use managed guidance properly. And vice versa. Think of the whole spectrum of automation, including manual flight, as of your toolbox. You need to be able to use all the tools safely and efficiently - and, with practice, develop a judgement for which one is appropriate to which situation. The same goes for pretty much anything which involves some variation from flight to flight. If you can do all instrument approaches smoothly but can't do a proper visual, that's one tool less to your avail. If you struggle with flaps 3 landings, here's another tool gone. If you always land with autobrake and struggle to keep the aircraft straight and achieve a smooth stop with a reasonable brake temperature when braking manually - that's again one tool less. And, the more tools you master, the better your chances of solving any random problem safely for yourself and those behind you.
PilotLZ is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 22:41
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Check Airman
Respectfully disagree. Is the FD there to help me, or am I there to follow the FD? At my home base, we often have that scenario come up. In busy airspace, we don’t wait for the PM to search through the pages to find the fix. The PF will start heading in the right direction. The FD will eventually catch up.
try that in an Airbus and you could be in for
quite the surprise.
If you need to; call ‘set heading xxx and point
the jet at the fIx. outsmart the FD, especially before ALT* and you’ll be reaching for the thrust levers below 10k..


neilki is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2020, 22:47
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: New York
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
4 scary words

Originally Posted by pineteam
Visual approaches are to be flown using outside references. Programming the FMS is a big no no by Airbus. I remember reading it in one of the Airbus Safety First Mags. Why would you do that anyway... Flying visual is easy.
strike terror into the heart of any Airbus pilot
’cleared for the visual...’ 😷
neilki is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.