Why is automation dependency encouraged in modern aviation ?
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Don't we already do that? We always have some element of direct and alternate law flight at some point in the year. At the legal minimum, I imagine it is required at least once every 3 years during the ATQP cycles. The move to EBT should demonstrate when extended modules are required to to a reduction in proficiency.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
I don't know where you fly, but there's a fair amout of autolands done during the year due to weather, so you can shed couple of percent of the 100% figure.
Significant proportion requiring raw data visual approach or sidestep? How many flights in the last 12 months would you be unable to complete (as in would have to divert) without doing a visual approach or a sidestep?
Significant proportion requiring raw data visual approach or sidestep? How many flights in the last 12 months would you be unable to complete (as in would have to divert) without doing a visual approach or a sidestep?
Flights to Corsica might often require visual as well.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 136
From: USA
I don't know where you fly, but there's a fair amout of autolands done during the year due to weather, so you can shed couple of percent of the 100% figure.
Significant proportion requiring raw data visual approach or sidestep? How many flights in the last 12 months would you be unable to complete (as in would have to divert) without doing a visual approach or a sidestep?
Significant proportion requiring raw data visual approach or sidestep? How many flights in the last 12 months would you be unable to complete (as in would have to divert) without doing a visual approach or a sidestep?
Much more likely to be given a funny vector or have to dodge some weather, so need to disconnect the automatics and do some of that pilot stuff.
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 541
Likes: 336
From: Blue sky
In general, there is an overestimation of ones flying abilities and an underestimation of the computers flying abilities. I read a lot of "we do this and that" on this page, but if you would have to grade... it's a bit like navy carier landings I would say. They all landed on the deck, eventually, one way or the other. But not sure if the LSO liked the result.
Enjoy the manual flying while you can, it's not forbidden, but it's a concious decision as well. I enjoy it, I love it, I do it.
Automation is a tool. Use it. I love it, I do it.
Your ego can be a dangerous threat. Avoid it.
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,692
Likes: 1,281
From: Australia
Enjoy the manual flying while you can, it's not forbidden,
It is still actively discouraged in some airlines in Asia and the Middle East. I recall clearly a paragraph in the 737 Operations Manual of Germania airline many years ago which stated "Under no circumstances will manual flying be attempted apart from takeoff and landing."
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 541
Likes: 336
From: Blue sky
It is still actively discouraged in some airlines in Asia and the Middle East. I recall clearly a paragraph in the 737 Operations Manual of Germania airline many years ago which stated "Under no circumstances will manual flying be attempted apart from takeoff and landing."
In the original topic a comparison is made between RNAV approaches that have to be flown with the FD and NDB approaches flown through old-school habits (I think it was at least), and situational awareness is thrown in the pool of reasoning. This is a very narrow vision unfortunately, I challenge everyone to go back, practice the heck out of their skills, and fly the approaches old-school with so-called "augmented" situational awareness. There is a strange connection between raw data and situational awareness, for some reason people still prefer to use old school HSI indications and dare to claim their situational awareness was better "back in the day". On top, they want to do all that in manual flight.
Manual flying skills and use of automation are not connected. Use of FD does not reduce your situational awareness. It should improve. If you think it's not the case, that is your problem. The whole idea of automation is to free up your brain so you can use it more efficient. Automation has brought us improvements. If you don't understand how that is achieved in RNP approaches, you have some study work to do. Because our goal is safety, and old school raw data approaches are not up to the safety standards of mondern aviation. And your flying skills are not going to change that.
That airlines don't train pilots efficiently or correctly on modern navigation, like current PBN procedures... now that is a whole other discussion yes...
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
It is still actively discouraged in some airlines in Asia and the Middle East. I recall clearly a paragraph in the 737 Operations Manual of Germania airline many years ago which stated "Under no circumstances will manual flying be attempted apart from takeoff and landing."
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
From: New Zealand
The question was about raw data skills. That refers to more than simply manual flying (which was maybe not so clear in my answer).
In the original topic a comparison is made between RNAV approaches that have to be flown with the FD and NDB approaches flown through old-school habits (I think it was at least), and situational awareness is thrown in the pool of reasoning. This is a very narrow vision unfortunately, I challenge everyone to go back, practice the heck out of their skills, and fly the approaches old-school with so-called "augmented" situational awareness. There is a strange connection between raw data and situational awareness, for some reason people still prefer to use old school HSI indications and dare to claim their situational awareness was better "back in the day". On top, they want to do all that in manual flight.
Manual flying skills and use of automation are not connected. Use of FD does not reduce your situational awareness. It should improve. If you think it's not the case, that is your problem. The whole idea of automation is to free up your brain so you can use it more efficient. Automation has brought us improvements. If you don't understand how that is achieved in RNP approaches, you have some study work to do. Because our goal is safety, and old school raw data approaches are not up to the safety standards of mondern aviation. And your flying skills are not going to change that.
That airlines don't train pilots efficiently or correctly on modern navigation, like current PBN procedures... now that is a whole other discussion yes...
In the original topic a comparison is made between RNAV approaches that have to be flown with the FD and NDB approaches flown through old-school habits (I think it was at least), and situational awareness is thrown in the pool of reasoning. This is a very narrow vision unfortunately, I challenge everyone to go back, practice the heck out of their skills, and fly the approaches old-school with so-called "augmented" situational awareness. There is a strange connection between raw data and situational awareness, for some reason people still prefer to use old school HSI indications and dare to claim their situational awareness was better "back in the day". On top, they want to do all that in manual flight.
Manual flying skills and use of automation are not connected. Use of FD does not reduce your situational awareness. It should improve. If you think it's not the case, that is your problem. The whole idea of automation is to free up your brain so you can use it more efficient. Automation has brought us improvements. If you don't understand how that is achieved in RNP approaches, you have some study work to do. Because our goal is safety, and old school raw data approaches are not up to the safety standards of mondern aviation. And your flying skills are not going to change that.
That airlines don't train pilots efficiently or correctly on modern navigation, like current PBN procedures... now that is a whole other discussion yes...
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,319
Likes: 100
From: IRS NAV ONLY
Any flight to Nice (NCE) RWY22 will require a curved final approach without automation. Surely you can still refuse visual or sidestep at the cost of a reduced operations efficacy, but some approaches remain and still require good manual handling skills.
Flights to Corsica might often require visual as well.
Flights to Corsica might often require visual as well.
The original argument was that there is a need to fly a visual approach or a raw data instrument approach a lot of times. I presume an instrument approach is available to your base, should you need one?
Joined: Jun 2000
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 4,692
Likes: 1,281
From: Australia
Manual flying skills and use of automation are not connected. Use of FD does not reduce your situational awareness. It should improve.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_Airlines_Flight_604
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 136
From: USA
Yes, IAPs are available. I was just expanding on the point that CAT 3 can be quite rare in some places.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 34
From: London,England
I wonder how long before they introduce RNP AR approaches to 22.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,712
Likes: 602
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Pilots who insist on flying raw data in all sorts of conditions just to prove something are a pain in the arse and lower the safety margins in a day to day operation. Sure handily when conditions are appropriate but I have always felt it is exaggerated saying we lose our skills unless we continually practice. I have always found the flying of a visual approach a couple of times a month combined with the hand flying work in the sim is more than enough to maintain the required level of skill.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
We already have one, its a visual approach but it takes the aircraft to the runway and the autopilot can be used down to 250ft. The company's intention is that every runway that requires a visual or circling approach will have a similar procedure, Gibraltar, Pisa, Genoa and Corfu and no doubt some others already have them. Use of them is "recommended" and I have to say they work extremely but personally I think it is a shame, these where destinations where you actually had to be able to fly the aircraft reasonably well and now it can be done with the push of a button. There will come a time in the not too distant future where a lot of airline pilots wouldn't be able to fly these sorts of approaches even if they had to. A lot, in both seats, already struggle which is precisely why these sorts of procedures are being introduced, it is deemed safer than letting crews do it manually.
NASA gives them an exosqueletton. They won't be able to walk again without the exosqueletton except if they train without it.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54
From: An Island Province
KP, you misjudge the difference between muscle use and brain use.
Train to use the brian, then continue to use it.
Automation is not a brian, it has not been 'trained', and will never improve with use, but it is good enough for most situations envisaged beforehand, but not all situations which our (untrained) brains throw at it afterwards.
Train to use the brian, then continue to use it.
Automation is not a brian, it has not been 'trained', and will never improve with use, but it is good enough for most situations envisaged beforehand, but not all situations which our (untrained) brains throw at it afterwards.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 136
From: USA
Pilots who insist on flying raw data in all sorts of conditions just to prove something are a pain in the arse and lower the safety margins in a day to day operation. Sure handily when conditions are appropriate but I have always felt it is exaggerated saying we lose our skills unless we continually practice. I have always found the flying of a visual approach a couple of times a month combined with the hand flying work in the sim is more than enough to maintain the required level of skill.
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
Pilots who insist on flying raw data in all sorts of conditions just to prove something are a pain in the arse and lower the safety margins in a day to day operation. Sure handily when conditions are appropriate but I have always felt it is exaggerated saying we lose our skills unless we continually practice. I have always found the flying of a visual approach a couple of times a month combined with the hand flying work in the sim is more than enough to maintain the required level of skill.
Last edited by vilas; 11th January 2021 at 06:03.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
I don’t know which pilots are insisting to fly raw data in all sort of conditions but if that the case I agree it’s looking for trouble. In my outfit we have restrictions on raw data flying in the line. Can not do it if the crosswind is more than 15kt or in case of low cloud base. I fly raw data quite often lately but mostly at my home base and always when the weather is within limit and my partner and I are not too fatigue which lately with the little amount of flying we do is not really an issue.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: France
I agree with this. I had said the same thing. It could be more than a couple of times if required. In automated Aircraft it is also important to know the automation well. If to capture the GS from above one has to disconnect the AP it's not professionalism but poor knowledge of automation. Automation is installed for day to day use and not only for Sundays and holidays. Manual flights are to be resorted only to retain raw data skills. Passengers pay to travel safely from A to B and not for somebody's pleasure. Enjoying your profession(which includes using automation) and doing something all the time just for fun is not same. Importantly one has to be loyal to the pay check i.e. company policy and procedures.
It can have very good reasons to be done, even if, yes, enjoyment alone is not a good reason.
Nobody is talking about disregarding automation just for fun. Why would you be talking about that ? Did you feel that someone suggested something like this ?
I don’t know which pilots are insisting to fly raw data in all sort of conditions but if that the case I agree it’s looking for trouble. In my outfit we have restrictions on raw data flying in the line. Can not do it if the crosswind is more than 15kt or in case of low cloud base. I fly raw data quite often lately but mostly at my home base and always when the weather is within limit and my partner and I are not too fatigue which lately with the little amount of flying we do is not really an issue.
