A320 - landing with manual thrust?
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 86
From: Planet Earth
I’ve never seen that.
Personally I hand flew a lot, not just for proficiency but because I enjoyed it, it certainly helped me in the sim and on the line on those challenging days
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 203
From: Here and there
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 5,683
Likes: 3,356
From: Everett, WA
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 602
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Everytime we go to work whether it be flying or in the sim you are practicing. Pilots who manually fly ALL the time in order to ‘practice’ are just a pain to the rest of us. If you need to be flying manually every day just so you don’t prang the thing should you ever be required to hand fly then you shouldn’t be flying.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 203
From: Here and there
No, of course not. It’s not the Olympics. I don’t need to be better than every other pilot or the best I could possibly be. That would require a ridiculous amount of effort for no reward. I’m quite content being good enough. And no that doesn’t mean “not good enough for a difficult case” tdracer, that would not meet the definition of “good enough” would it?
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 203
From: Here and there
And don’t misunderstand me, I’m not saying we shouldn’t do the best we can in the moment. When i’m flying I will do the best job I can, but I’m not spending every waking moment in the books or chair flying approaches or whatever. I don’t have a home simulator setup and I don’t hand fly for “practice” (I do it for fun).
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 543
Likes: 339
From: Blue sky
I have often suggested that in the same way that we had to do three auto-lands in any 6 month period to keep our currency up, and keep a record of that; we should be required by pilot training management do three fully manual raw data ILS approaches. On reasonable weather days and 'reasonable airspace' days, of course.
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
There is an interesting discussion on a podcast somewhere (forgot the name), a navy pilot interviewing a DARPA pilot. What I took home is an interesting observation made in the interview that the navy pilot likes to quantify his "good piloting skills" on the simple basis of carrier landings. He doesn't really care about "in the battle" accuracy and efficiency numbers, that's not what made him a "good navy pilot". The DARPA pilot thinks it's interesting to see how pilots "quantify" their qualities: manual carrier landings. He simply "observes" that when you take away the carrier landing, you take away the metrics for the pilot to "differentiate" him from the others. So the majority of the pilots oppose to evolution like the "magic carpet" and state it destroys piloting skills. But does it really destroy flying skills, or does it take away the metrics to differentiate ourselves from others? As if those skills are the only differentiator that are "the reason why we earned to be up there".
The reason why a human is still up there is different today. Automation in normal operations does a much better job than the average pilot when it comes to carrier landings. The DARPA guy explains they were involved in GCAS and how automation at the end of the day is designed to protect when humans face their limitations.
When it comes to raw data flying, I have similar feelings. It is fun and I like to do it "time and situation permitting". But the older I get the less it has become the reference for what I would presume is to be my job: the commercial pilot. Aircraft technology evolves and should make our life easier, so we can focus on our real strengths: flexibility and adaptability. At the end of the day it is a business and automation is there to make the business work and make it a safer environment. I do not have any problem with that. At the end of the day, when you have an emergency, the goal of the situation is to make it as easy as possible. That's why you have a panpan, a mayday. You simply avoid crosswinds, you avoid bad weather, you don't go look for it anymore to "show you can". That simple idea "because I can" is becoming nothing more than "fun".
As mentioned before, the goal is not to be better than the others, the goal is not have a weakness in that area. As nicely stated "to prevent the dust and rust from settling in".
Aircraft: trimmed nicely by AP
PF: "you mind if I disconnect, fly raw data?"
Me: "If you promise not to overcorrect..."
PF: disconnects, starts moving stick and throttle... :-)
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,115
Likes: 86
From: England
BB, A very interesting view.
A difficulty in explaining performance is that most activities involve tacit skills; as learnt with experience, but hard to describe. You can read or be told how to ride a bike, but you still have 'to do it', learning though practice.
The standard of human performance depends on context.
In normal operations we should strive for the best, but reality and human behaviour often accepts lower standards - we 'satisfice' according to the perceived situation and level of skill - we are lazy, minimising cognitive resource. In these circumstances modern automation is able to exceed human capability.
In abnormal situations, no automation, then the human will always be 'best'. However, the level of performance need not be as required for normal operations, just match the conditions and minimising the risk of harm - redefined objective.
Observing and participating in research into human capability in high workload - novel situations - manual landings in fog; the human is more capable that imagined. An external view might quantify this, but internally this cannot be judged until experienced, thus generating a concern about ability - confidence.
Limiting conditions were very difficult to define, best identified by outcome 'I didn't expect that', but that's when we learn.
Perhaps normal operations do not allow - accept sufficient 'I didn't expect that' situations from which to learn; yet with rare failures in modern operations it doesn't matter except for dented pride - is that what we fear most of all.
A difficulty in explaining performance is that most activities involve tacit skills; as learnt with experience, but hard to describe. You can read or be told how to ride a bike, but you still have 'to do it', learning though practice.
The standard of human performance depends on context.
In normal operations we should strive for the best, but reality and human behaviour often accepts lower standards - we 'satisfice' according to the perceived situation and level of skill - we are lazy, minimising cognitive resource. In these circumstances modern automation is able to exceed human capability.
In abnormal situations, no automation, then the human will always be 'best'. However, the level of performance need not be as required for normal operations, just match the conditions and minimising the risk of harm - redefined objective.
Observing and participating in research into human capability in high workload - novel situations - manual landings in fog; the human is more capable that imagined. An external view might quantify this, but internally this cannot be judged until experienced, thus generating a concern about ability - confidence.
Limiting conditions were very difficult to define, best identified by outcome 'I didn't expect that', but that's when we learn.
Perhaps normal operations do not allow - accept sufficient 'I didn't expect that' situations from which to learn; yet with rare failures in modern operations it doesn't matter except for dented pride - is that what we fear most of all.
Joined: Sep 2016
Posts: 937
Likes: 67
From: USA
Everytime we go to work whether it be flying or in the sim you are practicing. Pilots who manually fly ALL the time in order to ‘practice’ are just a pain to the rest of us. If you need to be flying manually every day just so you don’t prang the thing should you ever be required to hand fly then you shouldn’t be flying.
Joined: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 602
From: Dark Side of the Moon
And there is the fundamental difference, Practice to me is everything, reading ex charts, fuel planning, flying a SID, conducting an ILS flying the odd visual approach is ALL practice. When did just hand flying equate to ‘practice’. As said above pilots who pride themselves on their frequency of hand flying are judging their jobs and ability to do it on a very very small component of the overall picture. Everytime I go to work I am aiming at achieving the perfect flight….. I have never achieved it and the flight becomes practice so that next time I can try again. If I go 6 months without flying a manual ILS I don’t consider myself out of practice. I turn up to the sim and demonstrate my ability in that area and are judged to be capable of that skill amongst many others.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,247
Likes: 203
From: Here and there
I think he’s saying we practice whatever it is we are doing. It’s not just manual flying skills that can be practiced. Effective management of automation is just as much of an art as hand flying. I’ve seen more pilots lose the plot trying to use automation than I have hand flying.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
Why so many serious incidents during go around and interception from above? I mean these are normal easy procedures. IMO, it’s obvious cause we don’t practise this in normal line especially go around (hopefully not!$$$). Go around are practised many times in simulator sessions but still too many professional pilots are messing them up during the line cause as good as simulator is the startle effect is not there and a simulator can not reproduce somatogravic illusion. This threat is so insidious and completely underestimated by most pilots. The main reason Airbus introduced the soft go around function is because of that illusion and not like I heard from some colleagues “to save the engines”.
Pilots assume they are good enough by just practicing in the simulator until that day they are suffering from fatigue and need to do a manoeuvre they never did in the real aircraft. Then the reality will hit in their face really hard… Just like I consider myself an ok car driver until the day I need to do a parallel parking and realise how !!!!! I am.
Pilots assume they are good enough by just practicing in the simulator until that day they are suffering from fatigue and need to do a manoeuvre they never did in the real aircraft. Then the reality will hit in their face really hard… Just like I consider myself an ok car driver until the day I need to do a parallel parking and realise how !!!!! I am.
Last edited by pineteam; 13th September 2024 at 06:01. Reason: Added one sentence
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 39
From: Wanderlust
a simulator can not reproduce somatogravic illusion.
Last edited by vilas; 13th September 2024 at 07:09.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,633
Likes: 137
From: USA
Why so many serious incidents during go around and interception from above? I mean these are normal easy procedures. IMO, it’s obvious cause we don’t practise this in normal line especially go around (hopefully not!$$$). Go around are practised many times in simulator sessions but still too many professional pilots are messing them up during the line cause as good as simulator is the startle effect is not there and a simulator can not reproduce somatogravic illusion. This threat is so insidious and completely underestimated by most pilots. The main reason Airbus introduced the soft go around function is because of that illusion and not like I heard from some colleagues “to save the engines”.
Pilots assume they are good enough by just practicing in the simulator until that day they are suffering from fatigue and need to do a manoeuvre they never did in the real aircraft. Then the reality will hit in their face really hard… Just like I consider myself an ok car driver until the day I need to do a parallel parking and realise how !!!!! I am.
Pilots assume they are good enough by just practicing in the simulator until that day they are suffering from fatigue and need to do a manoeuvre they never did in the real aircraft. Then the reality will hit in their face really hard… Just like I consider myself an ok car driver until the day I need to do a parallel parking and realise how !!!!! I am.
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 111
From: Somewhere over the rainbow
I generally do it with AP especially as demonstration to pilots willing to see one. But I agree in case of confusion, raw data would be a good option. I have seen pilots messing up so many times. Pulling OPN CLB while setting go around altitude, forgetting to manage speed( engines spooling up), not selecting a higher altitude and then reaching alt* or the worst of the worst not arming the GS…