Why is automation dependency encouraged in modern aviation ?
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 944
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can't comfortably go around busy, noise sensible airports requesting for non standard departures. For example, if the standard departure is an RNAV noise abatement, it isn't commendable to anoy ATC (more talking, probably more work) and the inhabitants (more noise) just because your aircraft doesn't allow raw data RNAV.
Rose VOR is completely manageable if anticipated correctly, it was considered basic during my MCC training.
It is quite fun to consider that the first time I flew the A320 sim, it was all raw data flying and navigating. It didn't seem to be a huge problem. But it is never done like this on the line.
Rose VOR is completely manageable if anticipated correctly, it was considered basic during my MCC training.
It is quite fun to consider that the first time I flew the A320 sim, it was all raw data flying and navigating. It didn't seem to be a huge problem. But it is never done like this on the line.
The conventional SIDs in my home base are almost identical tracks than the RNAV ones and no NADP required. That's the nice thing with airports built over the ocean I guess.
Of course it's manageable as long we remember how to fly the needles. xD
Ok thank you. Did not know that.
Last edited by pineteam; 4th Dec 2020 at 13:39. Reason: Correction
Capt Bloggs, pineteam,
The subject should not be seen as hand flying or not, pilots should hand fly; instead it questions why some views believe that more manual flight will improve expertise required to manage different situations.
Opportunistic flying in low workload conditions can improve confidence, self esteem, and refresh existing skills in that operation. However, this is unlikely to improve the expertise required in other flight areas or managing abnormal situations.
Although GA should be a normal operation, in reality it is abnormal due to low occurrence, not failure. Hand flying an approach and landing is unlikely to improve GA; hand flying a GA could, but also improved aircraft / systems.
A concern is if regulators or operators believe that the purpose of hand flying is to improve expertise, they risk complacency - they have responded to the perceived threat. Many safety 'interventions' are based on variable accident investigation and reporting, causal allocation, and misjudged recommendations.
Perhaps 'automation dependent' operators realise this and have other training methods to enhance expertise, particularly cognitive skill, situation awareness and decision making.
PK, yes inappropriate correlation, not cause or effect, but 'related' - associated; instruments and flying aircraft.
'… pilots have all of the skills … '. Accidents suggest otherwise, not weak manual skills, but inadequate situation assessment and choice of action.
An alternative view of manufacturing might be that modern aircraft have been designed for the primary task which is heavily automated - safer, but sufficient for manual flight, but not necessarily with the same accuracy depending on the situation; no AP, FD, RNAV could require a Pan call.
The subject should not be seen as hand flying or not, pilots should hand fly; instead it questions why some views believe that more manual flight will improve expertise required to manage different situations.
Opportunistic flying in low workload conditions can improve confidence, self esteem, and refresh existing skills in that operation. However, this is unlikely to improve the expertise required in other flight areas or managing abnormal situations.
Although GA should be a normal operation, in reality it is abnormal due to low occurrence, not failure. Hand flying an approach and landing is unlikely to improve GA; hand flying a GA could, but also improved aircraft / systems.
A concern is if regulators or operators believe that the purpose of hand flying is to improve expertise, they risk complacency - they have responded to the perceived threat. Many safety 'interventions' are based on variable accident investigation and reporting, causal allocation, and misjudged recommendations.
Perhaps 'automation dependent' operators realise this and have other training methods to enhance expertise, particularly cognitive skill, situation awareness and decision making.
PK, yes inappropriate correlation, not cause or effect, but 'related' - associated; instruments and flying aircraft.
'… pilots have all of the skills … '. Accidents suggest otherwise, not weak manual skills, but inadequate situation assessment and choice of action.
An alternative view of manufacturing might be that modern aircraft have been designed for the primary task which is heavily automated - safer, but sufficient for manual flight, but not necessarily with the same accuracy depending on the situation; no AP, FD, RNAV could require a Pan call.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KP, yes inappropriate correlation, not cause or effect, but 'related' - associated; instruments and flying aircraft.
'… pilots have all of the skills … '. Accidents suggest otherwise, not weak manual skills, but inadequate situation assessment and choice of action.
An alternative view of manufacturing might be that modern aircraft have been designed for the primary task which is heavily automated - safer, but sufficient for manual flight, but not necessarily with the same accuracy depending on the situation; no AP, FD, RNAV could require a Pan call.
'… pilots have all of the skills … '. Accidents suggest otherwise, not weak manual skills, but inadequate situation assessment and choice of action.
An alternative view of manufacturing might be that modern aircraft have been designed for the primary task which is heavily automated - safer, but sufficient for manual flight, but not necessarily with the same accuracy depending on the situation; no AP, FD, RNAV could require a Pan call.
Many accidents reflect loss of awareness about automation, and reluctance to takeover swiftly.
Why design it for "sufficient" in manual flight, instead of "optimal" ?
They litteraly have thousands of engineers, for design and certification, and dozens of test pilots (cat 1 and 2) and maybe hundreds of airlines pilots (flight operations department)
With no crosstrack deviation in RNAV, you can't fly an RNAV approach in case of loss of FDs. So suppose you fly into an airport without conventional arrivals (which could happen in the near future due to the attrition of conventional means, or is even already the case at somes places?), with an FD failure you're now pan pan. But if the aircraft was designed differently, it would be a seamless reversion to manual flight.
The subject should not be seen as hand flying or not, pilots should hand fly; instead it questions why some views believe that more manual flight will improve expertise required to manage different situations.
Where does that come from ?
Opportunistic flying in low workload conditions can improve confidence, self esteem, and refresh existing skills in that operation. However, this is unlikely to improve the expertise required in other flight areas or managing abnormal situations.
I wonder how you got there. The point of practising manual flying is to improve manual flying.
The 9 competencies are, as you know if you use this model, manual flying, automated flying, procedures, knowledge, decision making, SA, communication, workload management, leadership and teamworking.
It is obvious that flying manually will not make you gain knowledge or help you remember the procedures.
However, it has to beneficial side effects, in my opinion : better workload management (because of a higher workload which will make you practise this competency) and situational awareness, for the precise case of awareness of the aircraft.
Someone who is used to flying manually knows very well how the different flight parameters should behave. If the automation starts to do something unwanted, they will very easily catch that there is something odd. It is basic flying skill, but some accidents demonstrated that they sometimes caused a problem. The most iconic one, in my opinion, is the Emirates go around without power.
Last edited by KayPam; 4th Dec 2020 at 21:12.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There’s no conceivable drawback to regularly practicing without automation. My first jet didn’t have autothrust. I quickly had to learn power settings for different phases and configurations. Eventually you get to the point where you can set the approximate power setting without even looking at the engine instruments- your hand just knows where to go.
Likewise with pitch. If for some reason the attitude indicator doesn’t look just so, you know it’s not right and you fix it.
That sort of intimate knowledge of the aircraft comes in handy in an emergency. The flying part becomes subconscious. You’re using your mental capacity to handle the emergency. If that means I don’t fly the ILS as crisply as the AP in good weather, so be it.
Likewise with pitch. If for some reason the attitude indicator doesn’t look just so, you know it’s not right and you fix it.
That sort of intimate knowledge of the aircraft comes in handy in an emergency. The flying part becomes subconscious. You’re using your mental capacity to handle the emergency. If that means I don’t fly the ILS as crisply as the AP in good weather, so be it.
It is basic flying skill, but some accidents demonstrated that they sometimes caused a problem. The most iconic one, in my opinion, is the Emirates go around without power.
See:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/w...a6-fdn_eng.pdf
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opportunistic flying in low workload conditions can improve confidence, self esteem, and refresh existing skills in that operation. However, this is unlikely to improve the expertise required in other flight areas or managing abnormal situations.
Also, by “abnormal situations” of which you say the management is unlikely to be improved by hand flying proficiency, you seem to excluding basically every airline crash in recent history.
Although GA should be a normal operation, in reality it is abnormal due to low occurrence, not failure. Hand flying an approach and landing is unlikely to improve GA; hand flying a GA could, but also improved aircraft / systems.
Would go arounds be better if we could regularly practice them? Of course, but we have no choice but to accept that we can’t do that. But from that to conclude that proficiency in general flying of the airplane does not improve the situation, for a given maneuver, any more than no such proficiency? No.
A concern is if regulators or operators believe that the purpose of hand flying is to improve expertise, they risk complacency - they have responded to the perceived threat. Many safety 'interventions' are based on variable accident investigation and reporting, causal allocation, and misjudged recommendations.
Perhaps 'automation dependent' operators realise this and have other training methods to enhance expertise, particularly cognitive skill, situation awareness and decision making.
Perhaps 'automation dependent' operators realise this and have other training methods to enhance expertise, particularly cognitive skill, situation awareness and decision making.
Accidents suggest otherwise, not weak manual skills
The more we hand fly and use raw data without the FD, the less rusty our hand-eye coordination will be and the better our instrument scan.
Incidences such as SFO 777, several over-pitches and other very very basic mistakes during go-arounds, and some other fatal crashes, could have all have been prevented had the pilots "looked through" the automatics at the basic pitch, bank and speed.
But we should chose suitable times to practise. Am I going to hand-fly down from FL410 to a busy Gatwick morning after crossing the Atlantic during the WOCL? No - I will probably only hand-fly the last 7 miles. But should I practise hand-flying and/or raw data when it is appropriate? Yes !
(For my BAe146 line check years ago, I had to fly holds in three different locations during a very busy Gatwick morning - no auto available on that jet - so all flown with AP on HDG, (no A/Thr), and raw data with me working out the joins and drift headings in my head. Why did it have to be a line check !)
Incidences such as SFO 777, several over-pitches and other very very basic mistakes during go-arounds, and some other fatal crashes, could have all have been prevented had the pilots "looked through" the automatics at the basic pitch, bank and speed.
But we should chose suitable times to practise. Am I going to hand-fly down from FL410 to a busy Gatwick morning after crossing the Atlantic during the WOCL? No - I will probably only hand-fly the last 7 miles. But should I practise hand-flying and/or raw data when it is appropriate? Yes !
(For my BAe146 line check years ago, I had to fly holds in three different locations during a very busy Gatwick morning - no auto available on that jet - so all flown with AP on HDG, (no A/Thr), and raw data with me working out the joins and drift headings in my head. Why did it have to be a line check !)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not forgetting the Flydubai Flight FDB 981 B737-800 on 19 June 2016. It was a straightforward go-around on instruments yet the pilot blindly tried to follow the HUD beyond its tolerances and dived into the ground. A terrible accident. There is no exemplary skill needed for a go-around in a 737. Properly trained, it is a basic manoeuvre after all. All the usual excuses can be made (fatigue etc) but it boils down to staggering incompetence in instrument flying ability.
See:
https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/w...a6-fdn_eng.pdf
To me, this is another illustration of the importance of ergonomics.
Surely, the captain failed to control his aircraft. But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback.
I forgot the exact word, but in the TEM model as well as in James Reason's model, safety comes from the addition of "safety layers".
So it is not contradictory to say that the pilot failed, but this does not prevent the manufacturer from trying to improve its product.
The whole subject is which improvement to make ? One strategy could be to keep the pilot out of the loop, as much as possible. Less pilot input required = less possible pilot error.
Another strategy would be to facilitate his task, offer him highly sophisticated automation, but also provide him with the means to keep sharp skills whenever he/she wants. And only then the regulator could ask for a certain point of manual flying proficiency.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely, the captain failed to control his aircraft. But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback.
Airbus FBW handles very differently in normal and alternate law, particularly during a go-around. In normal law, one has to pull, whereas in direct law (which you will be in landing configuration) the same amount of pull will get you into big trouble very quickly, as with any aircraft with underslung engines.
From what I understand, the PIC had to perform two go arounds and was emotionnally messed up. He had to push forcefully on the control column (he did not trim down at the first stage of the go around) and he looked like he went tired of this and eventually put way too much down trim.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback.
I forgot the exact word, but in the TEM model as well as in James Reason's model, safety comes from the addition of "safety layers".
So it is not contradictory to say that the pilot failed, but this does not prevent the manufacturer from trying to improve its product.
I forgot the exact word, but in the TEM model as well as in James Reason's model, safety comes from the addition of "safety layers".
So it is not contradictory to say that the pilot failed, but this does not prevent the manufacturer from trying to improve its product.
He said constant force feedback. i.e. springs. The point being that it is no effort to push or pull, unlike a mistrimmed Boeing type.
On an Airbus He would have performed the go around with AP ON, and that makes a huge difference in terms of safety, especially with crap weather at 2 am.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I understand, the PIC had to perform two go arounds and was emotionnally messed up. He had to push forcefully on the control column (he did not trim down at the first stage of the go around) and he looked like he went tired of this and eventually put way too much down trim.
To me, this is another illustration of the importance of ergonomics.
Surely, the captain failed to control his aircraft. But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback
To me, this is another illustration of the importance of ergonomics.
Surely, the captain failed to control his aircraft. But with an airbus, the captain would not have been disturbed by very large stick forces, even in alternate law and trim failure, because of the sidestick having a constant force feedback
Last question how do we practice manual handling when emotionally messed up? Because all those hours spent on raw data didn't seem to help.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Having a margarita on the beach
Posts: 2,402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, absolutely, my point was that if the NG had the capability to perform an AP coupled go around in normal ops (besides low vis) then the outcome could have been different.
Yes, the B737 really is the Mark 1 Landrover of the skies, (no disrespect to a Landrover mark 1 - it's just a basic machine). What a shame they didn't update the 737 properly.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3. No matter how well a pilot is trained or is experienced he does not become immune to all the ills human flesh is heir to(human factors).
4. Automation can perform repetatively to a given standard. There is no variation due to skill. If it doesn't just replace it.
5. A few failures of automation is not enough evidence against automation just as one Sully or Al Haynes doesn't make a summer. There are any number of fully serviceable Aircraft crashed through inadequate piloting.
4. Automation can perform repetatively to a given standard. There is no variation due to skill. If it doesn't just replace it.
5. A few failures of automation is not enough evidence against automation just as one Sully or Al Haynes doesn't make a summer. There are any number of fully serviceable Aircraft crashed through inadequate piloting.
Compare with my para no.3. Pilot was emotionally messed up. Human factor.
If it was Airbus they would have flown in Auto and result would have been different.
Compare my para no. 4 and 5.
Automation can perform repeatatively to a given standard.
The aircraft was fully serviceable crashed due to inadequate piloting.
Idea of practicing raw data is develop and maintain a scan pattern of monitoring attitude, speed, altitude, thrust and/or ROD or ROC. It doesn't help flying everything in raw data and it is not possible. You can't practice high altitude handling, GAs, Direct law landings or any abnormalities.
Last edited by vilas; 5th Dec 2020 at 16:13.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,509
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think about it- you can write your name and phone number while holding a conversation, because you’ve done it a thousand times before. I bet you couldn’t figure out the square root of pi quite as easily while still having that conversation.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: France
Posts: 507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or would it be more grammatically correct to say "constant force feel" ?
The interesting question behind this being : is it harder to push a few dozen kg with both arms on a yoke or a few kg (how much is it for the airbus?) with only one hand ?
If I have time, maybe I will measure it at work with a luggage scale, which will give an approximate answer.