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

Why is automation dependency encouraged in modern aviation ?

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

Why is automation dependency encouraged in modern aviation ?

Old 13th Jan 2021, 04:51
  #301 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
On your first point I would say the approach is just as important on those bad weather days, and on your second point I DO see the benefit of handflying the approach. Those who leave the A/P in until 1nm from touch-down on a turbulent, crosswind approach, often get a nasty surprise when they finally take the A/P out. They suddenly realise what a challenging day it is that the A/P has been coping with, but have left themselves no time to get their responses up to speed and firmly into the groove of turbulent crosswind flying, so their flare, decrab and "landing" are usually poor in my experience of sitting next to them.

Much better to take the A/P out at 7-10 nm.
Totally agree with you. My worst landing was with a captain who asked me to keep AP ON until the last minute as he wanted to confirm the wind with the tower at 500 feet AAL since we have crosswind limitation for first officers. By the time he read back I was around 400 feet
with tail/crosswind of 15kt. No time to feel the aircraft and ended doing a 1.55G landing.
I always recommend my colleagues if they ask me, to disconnect at latest at 1000 feet to feel the aircraft especially in bumpy conditions. I personally disconnect around 7/8 miles when flying with FDs on.




Originally Posted by Check Airman View Post
raw data at night? sounds dangerous
Right? Flying at night should not be legal at the first place. Too risky.

Last edited by pineteam; 13th Jan 2021 at 05:38. Reason: Added a sentence
pineteam is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 07:09
  #302 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 1,968
Originally Posted by pineteam View Post
Totally agree with you. My worst landing was with a captain who asked me to keep AP ON until the last minute as he wanted to confirm the wind with the tower at 500 feet AAL since we have crosswind limitation for first officers. By the time he read back I was around 400 feet
with tail/crosswind of 15kt. No time to feel the aircraft and ended doing a 1.55G landing.
I feel your pain. That's got to be one of the stupidest things I've read all week.
Check Airman is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 10:34
  #303 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 1,820
Originally Posted by alf5071h View Post
sonic, #293, I would argue otherwise, yet debatable.
I agree that the flare combination - coordination are important, but would replace 'practice' with 'exposure' in a range of situations. Continually flying in the same conditions adds little to the ability to adapt to other conditions; e.g. maximum winds and / or turbulence, the latter may be the greater challenge
Theory is not the knowledge of 'know what', but that of 'know how', particularly tacit knowledge - gained and improved with practice. The skills associated with this are the combination of knowing how-and-when to adapt technique, and the mental and physical 'gear change' required for the perceived situation.

Hand flying an approach provides opportunity to get in the loop earlier, experience wind / turbulence change with reducing altitude, and gusts affecting all axis - the 'combination'.
Many simulators have significant limitations in crosswinds, yaw - roll modelling is difficult, low turbulence fidelity, and the non existent lateral acceleration for the important seat of the pants feedback - instead reliance on the sim visuals to judge sideways movement.

The view of increased workload is a concern; why should this matter if the piloting task, aircraft capability, and situation are within the certification assumptions. Perhaps the assumptions have been misjudged, pilot capability vs situation. More sim training cannot guarantee improving all pilots, but restricting the situation to match aircraft - pilot capability in abnormal conditions could be more effective - safety wise. Auto flight is not necessarily less work load, only different.

BB, situation awareness
However, the FD/AP (flying via technology) provides a different awareness, not necessarily that for manual abnormal operations.
Originally Posted by Uplinker View Post
On your first point I would say the approach is just as important on those bad weather days, and on your second point I DO see the benefit of handflying the approach. Those who leave the A/P in until 1nm from touch-down on a turbulent, crosswind approach, often get a nasty surprise when they finally take the A/P out. They suddenly realise what a challenging day it is that the A/P has been coping with, but have left themselves no time to get their responses up to speed and firmly into the groove of turbulent crosswind flying, so their flare, decrab and "landing" are usually poor in my experience of sitting next to them.

Much better to take the A/P out at 7-10 nm, so you have plenty of time to get into the groove of the conditions and for your motor responses to rev up. By the time you get to the flare and decrab, it is all nicely under control, (or you have gone around!).

NB, I am referring to A320 family, in which I usually leave the A/THR in, since it (and GS mini) do an excellent job on all but the most awful days, and I concentrate on keeping the plane the right way up and flaring and decrabbing correctly. In A330 one sometimes has to manually control the thrust as well.
Whatever technique works best for you is by all mean acceptable, within the SOPs parameter.
Statistically speaking, if you check your operator's flight safety data, you will most likely find out that any exceedance involved with crosswind landings is mainly related to excessive crab angle on touchdown (Airbus FBW), excessive centerline deviation and bounces on touchdown. Proactive safety approach will enhance crosswind landings practice during recurrent sim sessions, as it is the only feasible way to boost motor skills in this situation ; flying around chasing crosswinds on the line for practice is not an option.
In the vast majority of cases when conducting sim sessions for crosswind practice the focus is in the last 500 ft, particularly close to the flare where the pilot will be very shortly required to exercise a rapid sequence of motor skills such as flare at the correct height, rudder to decrab and the right amount of aileron to maintain the centerline without exceeding 5 degrees of crab or bank.
It takes practice and exposure as you say and generally speaking there are several uncertainties that are addressed such as where to look and when and how to cope with some sensory illusion while flaring and decrabing.
Regarding the approach again, if you feel more comfortable to disconnect at 8-10 nm to get in the groove so be it. Hand flying is by definition a workload, otherwise there would be no autoflight systems around. How to use it correctly is another matter though, and I perfectly agree that in some situations it might not be the best solution (Airbus golden rule #2).
sonicbum is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2021, 05:49
  #304 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,637
Boeing Chief Pilot of special projects Jerry Whites comments re automation at 40:07

megan is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2021, 16:23
  #305 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: SEUK
Age: 73
Posts: 640
A bit off thread - Jerry White mentions continuous stick shaker during the Lion Air flight prior to the accident flight. It's always worth knowing the stick shaker and aural warning CB locations for rapid access if required. During a B757 fatal accident a few years ago the crew were confused by simultaneous sticker shaker and overspeed warnings (static ports blocked). Of course 80%N1 and pitch +3 degrees wings level would have given them time to sort out the problems. If I left the flight deck (B757/767) during flight I would ask the copilot to attach the aide-memoire below (folded in half and laminated) to his control wheel as he would be unmonitored till I returned. I would also leave the QRH open at the rapid depressurization checklist.



Discorde is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.