Why is automation dependency encouraged in modern aviation ?
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: Oxford
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little bit off topic from the present discussion, but I suppose this would be the right thread to ask!
For those of you who are confident with the raw data manual flying, do you have any rule of thumb forumlas for turn anticipations? For example, how many miles before flying overhead a VOR should I start turning to smoothly intercept the outbound radial? On top of that, are there any very rough factors that we can add to DME distance to compenstate for slant range?
Many thanks guys and girls, keep up the hard work as always
For those of you who are confident with the raw data manual flying, do you have any rule of thumb forumlas for turn anticipations? For example, how many miles before flying overhead a VOR should I start turning to smoothly intercept the outbound radial? On top of that, are there any very rough factors that we can add to DME distance to compenstate for slant range?
Many thanks guys and girls, keep up the hard work as always
Pre 'automation' navigation procedure required beacon overflight before turning; airspace design and management allowed for this.
Post automation it is possible to use turn anticipation which enabled more efficient airspace use, increased traffic, etc.
Choosing to fly manually in modern 'automated' conditions requires the pilot to adapt to the norm, greater mental demand, increased workload, less attention on overall flight management, - why would we choose to do that.
Auto unavailability, system failures are rare; there is no need to practice for a rare event when alternatives are available - use alternative procedures, communicate, declare an emergency.
If there are no alternatives then ask why; now, before any failure, do not depend on automation.
Alternatives should not force change on limited capability humans; nor expect that being able to remember / calculate, divide, and multiply will improve flying in surprising situations when automation fails.
Post automation it is possible to use turn anticipation which enabled more efficient airspace use, increased traffic, etc.
Choosing to fly manually in modern 'automated' conditions requires the pilot to adapt to the norm, greater mental demand, increased workload, less attention on overall flight management, - why would we choose to do that.
Auto unavailability, system failures are rare; there is no need to practice for a rare event when alternatives are available - use alternative procedures, communicate, declare an emergency.
If there are no alternatives then ask why; now, before any failure, do not depend on automation.
Alternatives should not force change on limited capability humans; nor expect that being able to remember / calculate, divide, and multiply will improve flying in surprising situations when automation fails.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre 'automation' navigation procedure required beacon overflight before turning; airspace design and management allowed for this.
Post automation it is possible to use turn anticipation which enabled more efficient airspace use, increased traffic, etc.
Choosing to fly manually in modern 'automated' conditions requires the pilot to adapt to the norm, greater mental demand, increased workload, less attention on overall flight management, - why would we choose to do that.
Auto unavailability, system failures are rare; there is no need to practice for a rare event when alternatives are available - use alternative procedures, communicate, declare an emergency.
If there are no alternatives then ask why; now, before any failure, do not depend on automation.
Alternatives should not force change on limited capability humans; nor expect that being able to remember / calculate, divide, and multiply will improve flying in surprising situations when automation fails.
Post automation it is possible to use turn anticipation which enabled more efficient airspace use, increased traffic, etc.
Choosing to fly manually in modern 'automated' conditions requires the pilot to adapt to the norm, greater mental demand, increased workload, less attention on overall flight management, - why would we choose to do that.
Auto unavailability, system failures are rare; there is no need to practice for a rare event when alternatives are available - use alternative procedures, communicate, declare an emergency.
If there are no alternatives then ask why; now, before any failure, do not depend on automation.
Alternatives should not force change on limited capability humans; nor expect that being able to remember / calculate, divide, and multiply will improve flying in surprising situations when automation fails.
Sure if this is your xth sector today and the fatigue is creeping in and you don't trust yourself *at that moment*, give yourself some mental rest and take advantage of the automation which is at your disposal. But if this becomes a habit - or worse, a *limitation*, it will lead to nowhere good. Imagine telling a load of nervous flyers that their crew of professional, paid pilots are nervous about manually controlling their aircraft while flying an approach and that two of them find the combined workload overwhelming. Come on! Even Gordon Ramsay would be disappointed by that attitude, and he doesn't even fly.
We all have deep fears, we all have insecurities, weaknesses, lack of skill in certain areas, lack of mental resources after reaching the point of exhaustion, but we owe it to the people whose lives depend on us and to our basic human decency to WORK ON IT. Whenever possible, however possible, pilots should always strive to improve their skills, their understanding, their confidence, their precision and themselves as persons. Reach out to colleagues, reach out to anyone you can, but you must make an active effort. Settling into a nice little routine and making excuses is not the correct attitude and it will bite you in the ass on that day that I hope you never get to experience. If you are not constantly striving to become better, you don't belong up there.
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Scandinavia-home of the midnight sun.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Because the pursuit of excellence is a cornerstone of this demanding profession and it is what the passengers expect of us (for those who fly passengers) and it is what we should expect of ourselves. You don't hear Formula 1 pilots saying "oh well I'll just cruise around because I'm nervous about turning corners at a high speed" or bridge workers saying "oh I don't like heights and I'm trying to avoid the greater mental demand of working strapped in a harness, so I'll not punch in these rivets. I'll let my robot colleague deal with it." Don't like the job, there are others clawing to take your spot. By all means step aside if it's not your cup of tea.
Sure if this is your xth sector today and the fatigue is creeping in and you don't trust yourself *at that moment*, give yourself some mental rest and take advantage of the automation which is at your disposal. But if this becomes a habit - or worse, a *limitation*, it will lead to nowhere good. Imagine telling a load of nervous flyers that their crew of professional, paid pilots are nervous about manually controlling their aircraft while flying an approach and that two of them find the combined workload overwhelming. Come on! Even Gordon Ramsay would be disappointed by that attitude, and he doesn't even fly.
We all have deep fears, we all have insecurities, weaknesses, lack of skill in certain areas, lack of mental resources after reaching the point of exhaustion, but we owe it to the people whose lives depend on us and to our basic human decency to WORK ON IT. Whenever possible, however possible, pilots should always strive to improve their skills, their understanding, their confidence, their precision and themselves as persons. Reach out to colleagues, reach out to anyone you can, but you must make an active effort. Settling into a nice little routine and making excuses is not the correct attitude and it will bite you in the ass on that day that I hope you never get to experience. If you are not constantly striving to become better, you don't belong up there.
Sure if this is your xth sector today and the fatigue is creeping in and you don't trust yourself *at that moment*, give yourself some mental rest and take advantage of the automation which is at your disposal. But if this becomes a habit - or worse, a *limitation*, it will lead to nowhere good. Imagine telling a load of nervous flyers that their crew of professional, paid pilots are nervous about manually controlling their aircraft while flying an approach and that two of them find the combined workload overwhelming. Come on! Even Gordon Ramsay would be disappointed by that attitude, and he doesn't even fly.
We all have deep fears, we all have insecurities, weaknesses, lack of skill in certain areas, lack of mental resources after reaching the point of exhaustion, but we owe it to the people whose lives depend on us and to our basic human decency to WORK ON IT. Whenever possible, however possible, pilots should always strive to improve their skills, their understanding, their confidence, their precision and themselves as persons. Reach out to colleagues, reach out to anyone you can, but you must make an active effort. Settling into a nice little routine and making excuses is not the correct attitude and it will bite you in the ass on that day that I hope you never get to experience. If you are not constantly striving to become better, you don't belong up there.
This regular practice (WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT), clearly shows in the simulator, where most of my colleagues display very good handling skills on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many airlines around do not adhere to this, and having been on quite a few voluntary leave of absence over the years with other operators, I have seen the effects of so called aviators, who were plainly scared of disconnecting the automatics anywhere but fully configured at a 1000 ft in visual conditions.... Some of them so out of touch with flying an airplane that I would not dare to visit the toilet in cruise.
Rgds,
I agree with most of those points, Stuka 
The question of this thread is "Why is automation dependancy encouraged in modern aviation?"
It is human nature to do the easiest thing - we don't follow the footpath all the way to the end if we can cut the corner by walking across the grass. When we drive our cars, how many of us willingly use a paper map or our memory of a route ? No, obviously we use SatNav. How many drivers of automatic cars use their automatic gearboxes in manual mode?
If you are on a punishing airline roster or didn't sleep too well in the hotel, (but are not actually fatigued), then it is easier to fly using the automatics, and most pilots flying busy rosters in busy airspace will probably use the automatics. As soon as you start using good, well integrated automatics - and not all of them are - it is very hard to break away back to manual flying, because you know you are rusty and will look less than expert if you attempt it on the line. But of course this becomes a vicious circle.
How do pilots keep their skills sharp ? Since most pilots will use the easiest option and won't remember to manually fly - that is human nature - I believe it will have to be mandated in some way by chief pilots. A bit like paying taxes - you wouldn't do it unless there was some sort of pressure !
The question of this thread is "Why is automation dependancy encouraged in modern aviation?"
It is human nature to do the easiest thing - we don't follow the footpath all the way to the end if we can cut the corner by walking across the grass. When we drive our cars, how many of us willingly use a paper map or our memory of a route ? No, obviously we use SatNav. How many drivers of automatic cars use their automatic gearboxes in manual mode?
If you are on a punishing airline roster or didn't sleep too well in the hotel, (but are not actually fatigued), then it is easier to fly using the automatics, and most pilots flying busy rosters in busy airspace will probably use the automatics. As soon as you start using good, well integrated automatics - and not all of them are - it is very hard to break away back to manual flying, because you know you are rusty and will look less than expert if you attempt it on the line. But of course this becomes a vicious circle.
How do pilots keep their skills sharp ? Since most pilots will use the easiest option and won't remember to manually fly - that is human nature - I believe it will have to be mandated in some way by chief pilots. A bit like paying taxes - you wouldn't do it unless there was some sort of pressure !
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with most of those points, Stuka
The question of this thread is "Why is automation dependancy encouraged in modern aviation?"
It is human nature to do the easiest thing - we don't follow the footpath all the way to the end if we can cut the corner by walking across the grass. When we drive our cars, how many of us willingly use a paper map or our memory of a route ? No, obviously we use SatNav. How many drivers of automatic cars use their automatic gearboxes in manual mode?
If you are on a punishing airline roster or didn't sleep too well in the hotel, (but are not actually fatigued), then it is easier to fly using the automatics, and most pilots flying busy rosters in busy airspace will probably use the automatics. As soon as you start using good, well integrated automatics - and not all of them are - it is very hard to break away back to manual flying, because you know you are rusty and will look less than expert if you attempt it on the line. But of course this becomes a vicious circle.
How do pilots keep their skills sharp ? Since most pilots will use the easiest option and won't remember to manually fly - that is human nature - I believe it will have to be mandated in some way by chief pilots. A bit like paying taxes - you wouldn't do it unless there was some sort of pressure !
The question of this thread is "Why is automation dependancy encouraged in modern aviation?"
It is human nature to do the easiest thing - we don't follow the footpath all the way to the end if we can cut the corner by walking across the grass. When we drive our cars, how many of us willingly use a paper map or our memory of a route ? No, obviously we use SatNav. How many drivers of automatic cars use their automatic gearboxes in manual mode?
If you are on a punishing airline roster or didn't sleep too well in the hotel, (but are not actually fatigued), then it is easier to fly using the automatics, and most pilots flying busy rosters in busy airspace will probably use the automatics. As soon as you start using good, well integrated automatics - and not all of them are - it is very hard to break away back to manual flying, because you know you are rusty and will look less than expert if you attempt it on the line. But of course this becomes a vicious circle.
How do pilots keep their skills sharp ? Since most pilots will use the easiest option and won't remember to manually fly - that is human nature - I believe it will have to be mandated in some way by chief pilots. A bit like paying taxes - you wouldn't do it unless there was some sort of pressure !
However, I disagree with some of the assumptions you're making. I don't believe it's human nature to do the easiest thing. I think it's human nature to search for meaning and to do meaningful things.
I love driving, and I'll seldom use navigation tech (unless using the car for deliveries or something). I memorize the route beforehand and, if I get lost, I try to figure it out, or stop and ask for directions or look at the (admittedly non-paper) map again. It's a beautiful thing, to be lost and to find your way again.
When taxiing in a C152/172 (or whatever I can see the ground in) in summer, I'll try to avoid squishing the grasshoppers that swarm the taxiways. Ground doesn't mind. I know I'm still going to kill a bunch of them on the runway and who-knows-how-many insects in flight, but the ones that I have a choice to avoid I will. Even though it's far from easy.
If one flies for a living, it is reasonable to assume that this person finds some meaning in flying. Otherwise why do it in the first place? Can't be for the money. There's much less stressful ways of making much more money.
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand your point
However, I disagree with some of the assumptions you're making. I don't believe it's human nature to do the easiest thing. I think it's human nature to search for meaning and to do meaningful things.
I love driving, and I'll seldom use navigation tech (unless using the car for deliveries or something). I memorize the route beforehand and, if I get lost, I try to figure it out, or stop and ask for directions or look at the (admittedly non-paper) map again. It's a beautiful thing, to be lost and to find your way again.
When taxiing in a C152/172 (or whatever I can see the ground in) in summer, I'll try to avoid squishing the grasshoppers that swarm the taxiways. Ground doesn't mind. I know I'm still going to kill a bunch of them on the runway and who-knows-how-many insects in flight, but the ones that I have a choice to avoid I will. Even though it's far from easy.
If one flies for a living, it is reasonable to assume that this person finds some meaning in flying. Otherwise why do it in the first place? Can't be for the money. There's much less stressful ways of making much more money.
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
However, I disagree with some of the assumptions you're making. I don't believe it's human nature to do the easiest thing. I think it's human nature to search for meaning and to do meaningful things.
I love driving, and I'll seldom use navigation tech (unless using the car for deliveries or something). I memorize the route beforehand and, if I get lost, I try to figure it out, or stop and ask for directions or look at the (admittedly non-paper) map again. It's a beautiful thing, to be lost and to find your way again.
When taxiing in a C152/172 (or whatever I can see the ground in) in summer, I'll try to avoid squishing the grasshoppers that swarm the taxiways. Ground doesn't mind. I know I'm still going to kill a bunch of them on the runway and who-knows-how-many insects in flight, but the ones that I have a choice to avoid I will. Even though it's far from easy.
If one flies for a living, it is reasonable to assume that this person finds some meaning in flying. Otherwise why do it in the first place? Can't be for the money. There's much less stressful ways of making much more money.
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
In the 1980's and earlier I flew 737-200's around the Western, Central and South Pacific region. Most of the small airline (three 737-200 and two 727-100) 35 pilots were former Royal Australian Air Force. All the Boeings had FD 108 flight directors and there were no autothrottles and no EFIS. Manual flying in the climb to 10,000 ft and from 10,000 ft down was the norm and as far as I remember there was only one particular captain who swore by the FD and used it as much as he could. Navigation was by Omega in the early years followed by our first INS. All instrument let downs at the remote Pacific islands were NDB with the occasional VOR and ILS at the larger islands like Guam. In short, the standard of instrument flying was first class and there were no reports of pilots losing the plot in cloud or night IMC. And believe me there were some seriously black nights at these destinations.
Then in 1989 I went to England for a flying job also on the 737-200 and was given an instrument rating test in a 737-200 simulator at Gatwick as part of the British ATPL award, the IRE being a company man himself being tested for his IRE certification by a British CAA senior examiner occupying the 4th seat in the simulator. The senior examiner silently observed the two hour session. I found out later he was the Head Examiner of the CAA. In my opinion and being used to the outsoken and demanding Australian check captains in my former airline, he was a thorough English gentleman. The FD 108 left a lot to be desired and I elected to conduct the instrument approaches (ADF/VOR/ILS) manually flown raw data. After all I had been doing that sort of thing most of my flying career both military and civil.
The test was successful thank goodness as I felt a bit nervous knowing the top CAA gun was watching. The de-briefing finished and paper work signed, the CAA Examiner quietly said "That was OK, but you should try and use the flight director rather than fly raw data. I was tempted to say I found the Collins FD 108 a pain in the neck and that IMHO it added to my workload. But I listened to that tiny voice in my mind and thanked him politely assuring him I would use the FD more in the future. But the CAA man was a wise old bird and guessed I couldn't change my views at my relatively advnced years. We shook hands and went our separate ways. His to his big mahogany desk and me back to a real 737.
Later when flying EFIS 737's I could see the superb accuracy of the flight director system and used it but only to keep in practice at using it - not that I thought I needed it to complete a flight. That was in another era of course... .
When I was a training captain in a big airline back in the 1980s, there was a move to 'streamline' simulator exercises. One of the items it was suggested we should remove was the NDB approach on three engines in a cross wind. Why, we were asked, should this be retained in the six-monthly refresher training cycle when all the airports to which we operated our 747s were equipped with ILS? We kept this exercise in for two reasons; (1) some alternate airfields were equipped with NDBs (no VORs or ILS) and in the event of a diversion to one of these it was likely the reason for the diversion might be some kind of technical problem. (2) Flying an NDB only approach with an outboard engine failed and in a cross wind was as good a test of handflying ability as you were likely to find.
So I am with you Centaurus.
So I am with you Centaurus.
..........If one flies for a living, it is reasonable to assume that this person finds some meaning in flying. Otherwise why do it in the first place?
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
For all the people saying "why would we choose the extra workload etc" I just want to ask "but don't you enjoy flying? Are you not addicted to your aircraft and the way it moves? And the way you make it move?"
If someone has to force pilots to hand-fly, I would question what they're doing there in the first place.
Flying a large passenger jet is like conducting an orchestra and not the same as flying say, a Pitts special or a Tigermoth. In those smaller aircraft the very point of them is to hand fly. In the larger passenger jet the purpose is to get your passengers from A to B as smoothly, professionally and as efficiently as possible.
You say you use SatNav when making deliveries, which is similar to us using the FMGCS to conduct a passenger flight.
I started on very basic turbo props with no automatics at all which was fine, but nowadays my flying enjoyment (of large passenger jets) is more as a conductor. It is immensely satisfying to be up in the atmosphere in my shirt sleeves operating a large modern jet across continents through mostly key presses and knob twiddling. It's more about strategy and I don't feel the need to hand fly for hours on end.
BUT if ATC brings me in above the glide slope, I find the easiest thing is to drop the automatics and hand fly. And I still really enjoy hand flying a turbulent crosswind approach, flare and landing. It is great fun and gives me a strong sense of satisfaction.
.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If one flies for a living, it is reasonable to assume that this person finds some meaning in flying. Otherwise why do it in the first place? Can't be for the money. There's much less stressful ways of making much more money.
Last edited by vilas; 20th Dec 2020 at 12:31.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Montreal
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said! In my airline (European legacy), pilots must be equally proficient in all levels of automation, including basic manual, and we are encouraged to practice manual, raw data flying regularly, when conditions permit. As a trainer, I find this to be an excellent way to hone skills on a regular basis, which may save your life one day.
This regular practice (WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT), clearly shows in the simulator, where most of my colleagues display very good handling skills on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many airlines around do not adhere to this, and having been on quite a few voluntary leave of absence over the years with other operators, I have seen the effects of so called aviators, who were plainly scared of disconnecting the automatics anywhere but fully configured at a 1000 ft in visual conditions.... Some of them so out of touch with flying an airplane that I would not dare to visit the toilet in cruise.
Rgds,
This regular practice (WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT), clearly shows in the simulator, where most of my colleagues display very good handling skills on a regular basis.
Unfortunately, many airlines around do not adhere to this, and having been on quite a few voluntary leave of absence over the years with other operators, I have seen the effects of so called aviators, who were plainly scared of disconnecting the automatics anywhere but fully configured at a 1000 ft in visual conditions.... Some of them so out of touch with flying an airplane that I would not dare to visit the toilet in cruise.
Rgds,
In the 1980's and earlier I flew 737-200's around the Western, Central and South Pacific region. Most of the small airline (three 737-200 and two 727-100) 35 pilots were former Royal Australian Air Force. All the Boeings had FD 108 flight directors and there were no autothrottles and no EFIS. Manual flying in the climb to 10,000 ft and from 10,000 ft down was the norm and as far as I remember there was only one particular captain who swore by the FD and used it as much as he could. Navigation was by Omega in the early years followed by our first INS. All instrument let downs at the remote Pacific islands were NDB with the occasional VOR and ILS at the larger islands like Guam. In short, the standard of instrument flying was first class and there were no reports of pilots losing the plot in cloud or night IMC. And believe me there were some seriously black nights at these destinations.
Then in 1989 I went to England for a flying job also on the 737-200 and was given an instrument rating test in a 737-200 simulator at Gatwick as part of the British ATPL award, the IRE being a company man himself being tested for his IRE certification by a British CAA senior examiner occupying the 4th seat in the simulator. The senior examiner silently observed the two hour session. I found out later he was the Head Examiner of the CAA. In my opinion and being used to the outsoken and demanding Australian check captains in my former airline, he was a thorough English gentleman. The FD 108 left a lot to be desired and I elected to conduct the instrument approaches (ADF/VOR/ILS) manually flown raw data. After all I had been doing that sort of thing most of my flying career both military and civil.
The test was successful thank goodness as I felt a bit nervous knowing the top CAA gun was watching. The de-briefing finished and paper work signed, the CAA Examiner quietly said "That was OK, but you should try and use the flight director rather than fly raw data. I was tempted to say I found the Collins FD 108 a pain in the neck and that IMHO it added to my workload. But I listened to that tiny voice in my mind and thanked him politely assuring him I would use the FD more in the future. But the CAA man was a wise old bird and guessed I couldn't change my views at my relatively advnced years. We shook hands and went our separate ways. His to his big mahogany desk and me back to a real 737.
Later when flying EFIS 737's I could see the superb accuracy of the flight director system and used it but only to keep in practice at using it - not that I thought I needed it to complete a flight. That was in another era of course... .
When I was a training captain in a big airline back in the 1980s, there was a move to 'streamline' simulator exercises. One of the items it was suggested we should remove was the NDB approach on three engines in a cross wind. Why, we were asked, should this be retained in the six-monthly refresher training cycle when all the airports to which we operated our 747s were equipped with ILS? We kept this exercise in for two reasons; (1) some alternate airfields were equipped with NDBs (no VORs or ILS) and in the event of a diversion to one of these it was likely the reason for the diversion might be some kind of technical problem. (2) Flying an NDB only approach with an outboard engine failed and in a cross wind was as good a test of handflying ability as you were likely to find.
So I am with you Centaurus.
So I am with you Centaurus.
The conductor of an orchestra does not play the actual instruments, yet coordinates and produces an amazing piece of music.
Flying a large passenger jet is like conducting an orchestra and not the same as flying say, a Pitts special or a Tigermoth. In those smaller aircraft the very point of them is to hand fly. In the larger passenger jet the purpose is to get your passengers from A to B as smoothly, professionally and as efficiently as possible.
You say you use SatNav when making deliveries, which is similar to us using the FMGCS to conduct a passenger flight.
I started on very basic turbo props with no automatics at all which was fine, but nowadays my flying enjoyment (of large passenger jets) is more as a conductor. It is immensely satisfying to be up in the atmosphere in my shirt sleeves operating a large modern jet across continents through mostly key presses and knob twiddling. It's more about strategy and I don't feel the need to hand fly for hours on end.
BUT if ATC brings me in above the glide slope, I find the easiest thing is to drop the automatics and hand fly. And I still really enjoy hand flying a turbulent crosswind approach, flare and landing. It is great fun and gives me a strong sense of satisfaction.
.
Flying a large passenger jet is like conducting an orchestra and not the same as flying say, a Pitts special or a Tigermoth. In those smaller aircraft the very point of them is to hand fly. In the larger passenger jet the purpose is to get your passengers from A to B as smoothly, professionally and as efficiently as possible.
You say you use SatNav when making deliveries, which is similar to us using the FMGCS to conduct a passenger flight.
I started on very basic turbo props with no automatics at all which was fine, but nowadays my flying enjoyment (of large passenger jets) is more as a conductor. It is immensely satisfying to be up in the atmosphere in my shirt sleeves operating a large modern jet across continents through mostly key presses and knob twiddling. It's more about strategy and I don't feel the need to hand fly for hours on end.
BUT if ATC brings me in above the glide slope, I find the easiest thing is to drop the automatics and hand fly. And I still really enjoy hand flying a turbulent crosswind approach, flare and landing. It is great fun and gives me a strong sense of satisfaction.
.
That being said, I can't fault anyone for loving what they love. If somebody's heart is with the symphony of knobs, then that's where it is. But keep in mind that this conductor is expected to play, at a moment's notice, a flaming violin when the orchestra catches fire, while at the same time playing the cello with his other hand because the cellist just passed out. And sing.
I'm glad you agree that there are situations in which the most appropriate level of automation is none and that the *easiest* thing to do is to drop everything and hand fly. Unlike what some posters are saying, automation can actually mean MORE workload. There was a disappeared thread around here about how to fly a particular VOR approach on the A320 I believe, and all the posts were full of programming altitude constraints and programming this and programming that.
Life always doesn't give pleasant options. It will be very Utopian to imagine that most people earn a living doing what they like. Earning a living is not an option. A380 Capt doesn't enjoy driving a bus but they are doing it now. If you happen to earn a living doing what you like it's a bonus. Besides one likes flying is no guarantee of anyone's professional competence. There are pilots who love flying but are mediocre and there are pilots who were basically attracted to it because they had money to become one and considered the salary of airline pilot as a good investment. The basic education with which one becomes a pilot there is no other field to make much more money. The thread is about acquiring and maintaining unassisted skills so let's not add philosophy to it.
I don't buy the argument that people will just take that money and invest it in such a fickle profession. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it's terrible decision making. There must be some love, otherwise I really don't see why someone would bother. As someone who has gone to flight school, you know how much money it costs. That same money can get you 2 keys of cocaine, which you will see a quick return on, I promise you. Or you can open a small business and have cushion money left for your first months. In any case, you will definitely see a faster and more certain return on investment. All the money in the world could never have convinced me to go sailing in the sky if I didn't deeply love flying. The sacrifices, the uncertainty, the danger in some cases...Totally not worth it if your heart isn't in it.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That same money can get you 2 keys of cocaine, which you will see a quick return on, I promise you.
Last edited by vilas; 27th Dec 2020 at 06:29.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has gone to flight school, you know how much money it costs. That same money can get you 2 keys of cocaine, which you will see a quick return on, I promise you. Or you can open a small business and have cushion money left for your first months. In any case, you will definitely see a faster and more certain return on investment.
We're certainly starting 2021 off right!
2020 has been a rough year for us all. Let's hope that the vaccines will help us round the corner. Cheers!
Many thousands of years ago airline pilots in the UK renewed their instrument ratings (in the sim) under these conditions:
-raw data
-no autopilot
-no autothrottle
-no FMC
-IMC icing conditions
-all engines operating
-flight director available (PF asking PM to make the appropriate selections)
A puzzling feature of the above list is "flight director available." Yet the first item is "Raw data." A contradictory statement I would have thought?
The following statement is from an earlier Pprune contributor. I don't know the date of the original post or even which forum or the author, but in my book it should be kept in every pilots navigation bag and shoved in the face of any pilot (first officer or captain) that baulks at a reasonable request to switch off the flight director and practice hand flying.
(Quote):
"Raw data as a competence demonstration is intended to check a fundamental ability to fly some procedure at the lowest level of instrument display required to be provided in the aircraft.
Thus, no flight suggester, no thrust management slave, no 'noughts and ones' translating input data and no stress-relieving flight control manipulator. Just that most elusive of skills, manual flight on basic instruments." (Unquote)
Perhaps the operative words being "a fundamental ability to fly."
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where I worked 1964-90 we had to have either the FD or AP to use charted ILS CAT 1 minimums. Without either our DA became the LOC-only MDA and not less then 3/4 or RVR 4,000.
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: USA
Posts: 803
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That said, I have seen more than once, "raw data" used as meaning the display of a VOR signal instead of the overlaid RNAV approach.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think all the discussion is only centred around short to medium haul flights. If someone needs to do a dozen approaches to practice raw data then spare some thought to long distance guys. They hardly get to do 8 to 10 landings total in a month some they got to share also.