Hand fly entire sectors? At high altitude? For hours? For what? Macho? It's a major pain in the rear. I've flown 4 hr legs in the 30's. It's work and fatiguing.

But it can't be that tough. I've seen non pilots hand fly jets at FL410. So if someone with zero time can do it what is a professional pilot trying to prove?

I fly each and every one by hand. I would suffer from extreme boredome if I didn't.

True. It is a fact that most airbus pilots are very reluctant to handfly and they blame the airplane for that. The truth is that they don't trust in the airplane, typically because they don't fully understand it. It is very complex and going out of the box can bring unexpected consequences. Instead of studying and fully understanding airbus automation and flight controls, they decide to keep automation at all costs.

the usual symptom of such pilots in the sim is when the A/THR goes out, THR LK flashes on the FMA, perhaps they have the ECAM THR LVR MOVE, which means that thrust is frozen and pilot should take over from then on, and these pilots simply refuse to take over. Speed is gradually busted and still they decide to ignore the thrust levers. The caution chime will keep coming every 5 secs until you take over, so the whole situation is very irritating, and it takes a few, "thrust is yours" verbal clues until they move the levers. Many others don't have this patetic behaviour, of course but there are too many who behave like that, I have seen it many times, proportionally too many. If they did just a couple of hand flown ILS without A/THR every 2 or 3 months they wouldn't feel abandoned when A/THR is inop.

Cadets should definetly hand fly as much as they could, since one thing is loosing skill due to lack of practice and quite another is not having the skills in the first place...

I might handfly the 320 suck-squirt completely raw data if the trip is short (ie
below RVSM) and the FO is a switched on-bloke. This means no AP FD or AT
from eng start to eng SD. If the entire track is following ground navaids I can
solely use them too.

RVSM wise its everything off till 1,000 below RVSM lower level on the way up
then turn it all off again at the RVSM lower level on the way down.

Only time I'd cancel this is OEI esp on TO...at 400ft I'd slowly reinstall these
tools of trade for mutual crew workload alleviation.

Microburst2002, not realizing that the thrust is locked when the aircraft is in a failure mode is something completely different than not handflying enough.

You can hand fly the airbus all year long without ever getting the 'thrust locked' situation. The situation you describe has more to do with unfamiliarity with the Airbus intricacies.



Anyway, why would anyone want to hand fly any airplane straight and level for any part of any flight? That's what autopilots have been made for for the last 80 years!

Hand flying modern aircraft is fine, but the handling pilot must realise that he is significantly adding to the workload of the non handling pilot. In busy airspace this might not be acceptable. Automation led to a reduction in crew numbers, so the autopilot should be thought of as the third crew member - the aircraft is designed around this concept. So if you decide to hand fly, consider the workload you are handing your colleague, and if you are in a busy TCA you may decide that you are decreasing the safety of your operation. It goes without saying that in an emergency situation you should be able to cope - but practicing for emergencies should be done in the simulator.

The sole purpose of manual flying is to develop and maintain the skill needed to do so when automation fails and nothing more. There should be no sense of adventurism. Commercial flights are not training flights. Passengers pay to go from A to B as safely as possible. The very purpose of the flight is to make money for the company and not to get some thrill out doing something extraordinary. If you create an incidence/accident while trying to be a better pilot try telling that to the passengers. How many sectors you should hand fly. The answer is as minimum as required to keep the skill. Anyone who needs to manually fly 4 sectors everyday should have been doing something else. Another thing Airbus FBW has been aroung and growing for last 21 years and is here to stay. If you are not comfortable with the machine you should change your job. any new aeroplane you fly you need to adapt to it and not otherway round. I have flown both As and Bs and enjoyed both. Uneasiness about a machine is in the mind.

Microburst2002
I am sure as A320 pilot you are aware that A320 is a stabilised platform aircraft, in that the computers hold the aeroplane in the state autopilot was disconnected and resist any change that is not commanded by side stick and rudder. So it does not require as much skill to fly it as B 737 or A310 for that matter would require. Aircraft auto trims and holds the position you leave it in. If you can't fly A320 you won't be able to fly any aircraft. It doesn't get easier than that. What you have mentioned about Thrust lock being ignored in the SIM is a case of very bad training. I have not seen even a 200hrs guy do that. When failure takes place first thing is Fly, Navigate, communicate. Fly means check the state of AP, FD, ATHR, Altitude, Speed and sort out things in that order before dealing with ECAM. Yes since ATHR is recommended and used mostly you need to practice and develop scan to fly without ATHR that will happen in any aircraft

I disagree. I've flown many a trip where the CA decides to hand fly a bit more than usual. I flew with one such fellow only yesterday. I didn't feel that my workload was significantly increased. Perhaps flying a complex SID in a 727 or DC9...maybe. However in a modern jet, I fail to see how the workoad increases to the point where safety is compromised.

Before anybody attacks me, I'm obviously not talking about a busy airport while avoiding weather on a crowded frequency etc, but on a normal day, what's the big deal?

@ vilasWrong!! Manual flight can be more effective then using the autopilot! Are you one of those pilots who would use HDG and V/S to fly a visual approach or a circuit? Once you master manual flight, under certain circumstances it's much easier and just as safe (or safer) then letting the A/P do it! If you haven't done it already, you really should take the time to watch children of magenta. It's a very old speech, but still very much applicable today!
You're right about that! If the PIC of the flight I'm a passenger on, sees it as an adventure :ugh: to disconnect the automatics, I would prefer him to keep the A/P on! Better yet: I'd prefer not to be flying with this guy. I want my pilots to be convinced that they can handle the plane just as safely by hand then through the A/P! Let me assure you sure you that whenever I disconnect that A/P I'm convinced that I can fly the plane at least as safely as the automatics! I don't feel an adventurer when doing so, but I agree it is much more FUN handflying my A320 through a visual then taking the vectors to the ILS with A/P on!!! And what are you going to tell the pax when the pilots let a perfect plane crash simply because tha auto-flight system did not behave the way they expected it to and they were letting the plane crash because of it? Absolutely! The pax deserve pilots who are fully proficient! I cannot imagine the Asiana crash would have happened if the PF hand been handling the thrust levers himself instead of relying on A/Thr! Even if he was very rusty and uncomfortable with it, I'm sure that he and his training captain would have been monitoring airspeed, pitch and thrust and the worst that would have happened was a go-around but certainly not a crash! True! read what I have to say about that! Wrong!!! Every time there's nothing from stopping you (too much traffic, too tired, low visibility or cloudbase...) you SHOULD handfly your plane. Only then will you stay/become so proficient to make you convinced that you can be just as safe as when using the A/P! Only then will you become confident enough to instantly take over from a failing or mismanaged auto-flight system! The Qantas crippled A380 crew had to hand-fly the final app because the A/P couldn't handle it. I'm glad they were proficient enough to handle it! Would the outcome have been different if the A380 had belonged to an other company? Some Korean company? I would hope not...
You could even say that you should change your job if you're not comfortable HAND-FLYING that plane. I'll say it again: they're all big Cessna's. A correct pitch, bank, speed, thrust setting and configuration is all you need!! Uneasiness about manual flight is only in the mind brought about by stupid SOP's and a dangerous lack of currency!! Aren't they? How do you expect somebody new on type to get really proficient then? Let him/her fly a couple of dozen sectors with an empty airliner! No!! Consider every flight as a training opportunity! That doesn't mean you should start experimenting or taking risks of course. By all means, keep it safe! But, vilas, the very fact that you seem to be thinking that manual flight would be less safe, suggests to me that it's time to start thinking about your proficiency in manual flight! Boy, am I glad we have a good training department in our company! Amen to that!

edit: added a paragraph

Not only people cannot hand-fly an airbus. Now they even cannot do the pilot monitoring job, if the Pilot flying is flying manually.
It is true. I also fly 4 out of 5 approaches manually and some guys cannot cope with setting basic headings and altitudes.
I think these days average airbus guys are on the verge of being overloaded even if the automation is on and on a nice day.
Many guys hide the inability to fly an aircraft behind the words of how safe they are, because they are using automation. But when something goes wrong, they are trying to use automation to fix it. And that is often even more difficult than just take over manually. Yes, guys are even hopeless to fly the automation.
By flying the automation I mean when you have to give it some inputs, because the situation changed. If the automation works correctly you could even sit in a passenger seat and the flight would be a success.
If you make training too easy for people, it eventually becomes difficult for them. If you make it difficult, it becomes easy.
I find handflying the airbus wth no FDs, Autothrust and no bird (what a heresy! we are all going to die!) very easy, low task and relaxing. No emergency at all.
I feel sorry for guys, who consider it an emergency. I think they should have been accountants instead.
By the way the AF447 was not in deep stall. It would have been enough just to release the sidestick and everybody would have been alive.
Airlines are a sad, sad place. Thank God for pprune, because at least here I can communicate with guys, who also like flying. I guess in my airline I am the only one.

sabenaboy,

I agree with most everything you've written here. I'm not nearly as experienced as many of the posters here, but I shudder to think of how some would react to the clearance I was given last night...

Abeam the field, 5-6000ft, cleared for the visual approach. AP off, FD off (no AT) and turn for the airport. Did some of that stuff my PPL instructor taught me and eventually found the runway. It would even have been a greaser if the runway had been about 6 inches closer to sea level, but I digress...:)

Fortunately, at my outfit, we don't have any major restrictions concerning hand flying.

What in God's name can be so demanding that they can't monitor your flying?


Amen. When the "AP" screws up, I often have to sit and diagnose the problem. Meanwhile, I'm still travelling at 200+kts and getting higher above the glideslope. Quite often, I find that the fastest remedy is to turn off the AP and FD (because it can be distracting) and just fly the bloody plane.

J.S.
Couldn't agree more, but todays training has moved in another direction. Guys are nervous about doing so. I see the Mac/Microsoft generation of newbies in the cockpit and when the a/c goers in the wrong direction on the automatics the first thing that happens is heads down and dancing fingers on the keyboard. Or piano playing on the MCP. The last thing that happens is disconnect.

The other thing that makes me nervous is that the SOP says "after flaps are up engage VNAV." So they do, even with a malfunction. I suggest that they do not necessarily know what the FMC will be commanding so not connecting the FMC to the AFDS could be a safer option. Try HDG SEL or LVL CHG as appropriate and have direct control of what's going on.
This too seems to be a revelation because the SOP says VNAV. (scream & shout!)

I hand fly every leg with (No FDs) to RVSM. Disconnect from TOD if cleard to a FL below RVSM regardless of Wx conditions. I encourage my F/Os to do the same except with FDs in the Wx until they gain experience, then their option.



At the end of the day F/Ds A/Ts, A/Ps, a pilot does not make:ok:.

(The bold print and question marks are mine)

Even though I'm a big fan of flying manually and do so on most (not every!) approaches (read my previous message), I think you're exaggerating! Let James fly the airplane when it would be (just as) boring to do otherwise (descending "manually" along a STAR from FL290 down seems pretty boring to me) Also I would hope you would keep at least the F/D on when the metar reports cloudbase at the CAT I minimum with 800 m visibilty. There's one thing you should NEVER switch off: common sense!
(edited for spelling)

That's why I put it in quotes in my first post :}

Regarding handflying in IMC, I'm happy to do it raw data down to about 500ft agl. If the ceiling is below that, I prefer to have the AP do it so I can monitor the big picture more effectively. In VMC, I try to go down to mins without looking outside once or twice a month.

I handfly every leg up to at least 10, sometimes up to the cruise level (allow for altitude capture though). On the way down I'll usually click it off around 10 as well, maybe lower. This is regardless of weather.

A/T not installed and good riddance to that.

Don't need it, never use it.

About one short sector a month depending on crew workload
and whether I'm in the mood. Also I fly the omnis while letting
the kid keep the magenta on his side.

What a pile of macho horse sheet...

If you all all hand fly so much how do you eat your doughnuts?

Why do I wade through pages of this utter diatribe..

Sabenaboy says We probably come from different generations and types of flying. I started flying single engine single pilot freight many years ago. No F/D, no GPS, no AP, and NO MAGENTA LINE. My F/Os will disagree with you about your statement regarding exaggerations. If the weather is poor than I will have my low time F/O use the F/Ds for departures and arrivals. At least my F/Os understand the true meaning of situational awareness, and not only to terrain, but to what the aircraft is doing.:ok:

When I said I thought you were exaggerating, that did not mean I didn't believe you. I tried to say that, unless you're not flying a "modern" plane, you're exaggerating when you decide not to use the automatics when there's a good reason to. Don't get me wrong: If you look at my previous posts you can see that I still do A LOT of basic flying in my A320 with everything switched off (except the engines :\ ) and that I am a fierce defender of airline pilots having to maintain basic flying skills by taking the automation out whenever the conditions permit. The question is: What are you going to decide if the metar says that both cloud-base and visibility are very close to the minima for your Cat I ils approach? I'm sure that you and myself and all of our F/O's are ABLE to fly to the minima with the "needles centered" without F/D and without A/thr. (Our training manager joked that he would ask Airbus for a discount if we ordered our next A320's without F/D installed) I would think it's wiser to keep at least the F/D on in such conditions. Chances are that will not happen more then once or twice/year.

I think that every pilot should fly manually (A/P, F/D and A/Thr off) very regularly when there's no reason not to, but I also think that when there is a good reason to use the automatics a wise pilot should do so.

I fully agree that autoflight systems are installed to reduce the workload for the crew and NOT because the crew can't fly without, but I really do not feel the need to prove that on the line with a full load of pax in marginal conditions even if I'm 100% sure that I CAN!

sabenaboy: >"You could even say that you should change your job if you're not comfortable HAND-FLYING that plane. I'll say it again: they're all big Cessna's."

No way. :ugh: A Cessna's (152, 172, 182) engine doesn't take 8-10 sec to respond to a power demand.

Agree with your other stuff.

sabenaboy: >"I still do A LOT of basic flying in my A320 with everything switched off (except the engines http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ies/wibble.gif )"

Switched off? Do you pull some breakers to force your A320 into Direct Law (otherwise it's hardly basic flying)?

If so, I expect you need to avoid telling the regulators about it - or your management. I suspect they just might be spooked ...:rolleyes:

Come on - that's a little bit over-combative. In layman's terms handflying is still handflying whether what's between you and the flight surfaces consists of braided cable, an electronic FBW system or anything inbetween.

On my first ever line flight on B737 EFIS,
The Line- trainer told me to fly raw data, full rose ( so no map) to cruising level, and then again disconnect all at TOD to touchdown...
It made me getting a feeling for the aircraft very easily,and only once comfortable with the BASIC of the aircraft should you progress to autoflight modes and its tricks and pittfalls.

I fly raw data as much as possible when fatigue, traffic and weather allows me to, and urge my FO's to do the same.

Ps. Sabena has always been recognised as a reference in Safety and Crew proficiency:ok: isnt't it Sabenaboy:} Now for Sobelair...These were the cowboys:E:ok:

Does automation save fuel?
 

Using automation saves fuel!? NO, I disagree! (I already gave an example in this post)

Let me give you an other example that happened to me just a few days ago:
http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/7538/gozn.jpg

I was approaching CFU from the NNE. At aprox. 200 NM out we realised that the B737 20 NM ahead of us was also going to CFU. (The 737 was from a well known LCC with HQ in Ireland) And even though we were flying CI 10 in our A320 , we were catching up on him. We asked for his speed via ATC. We reduced from 270 to 260 kts when he replied his speed was 265 kts.

The weather was severe cavok with "unlimited" visibility, not a single cloud around and no wind! We were both transferred to CFU radar at about 70 nm out. ATC told the 737 that he was nr 1 for landing and that he could proceed to GAR for the VOR 35 app. We were told we were nr 2 and got vectored to BETAK.

When I go to CFU with such conditions, I would jump on the occasion and ask for a right hand visual to rwy 35 over the water! Prompted by me, ATC asked him if he would be flying the full procedure VOR app or if he was interested in a visual app.

He turned down the visual and opted for the full procedure! :ugh::ugh::ugh:
(he was at FL160 with 50 NM to go to GAR!)
While we were vectored beyond BETAK around the island while being told to reduce speed (already flying 250 below FL100), he flew the whole app at very slow speed. Even when reducing to 180 kts at BETAK, we were only 5 NM behind him on final and landed 2 min later. I strongly suspect he flew the whole approach on the FMGC speed and profile.

Now I can fully understand that a pilot follows the FMGC computed speeds during descend as per SOP, but this pilot could easily have saved 3 minutes, 12 miles and >100 kg of fuel by doing a nice and easy visual app. :ugh:

We, after vacating the rwy had to hold position one extra minute because the mandatory follow me was still busy with the 737. We arrived on blocks 8 mins later and with 200 kgs less fuel then I had hoped to be (If I had received a visual with no delay)!

To me this crew is the equivalent of an 85 yr old lady doing 70 km/h on a German highway!

Perhaps SOMETIMES automation can save fuel, but this crew certainly missed a great opportunity to use some airmanship to save fuel, time and money!

Of course one should have some airmanship before being able to use it! :rolleyes:

Once you find yourself welded to using the FD which after all is only an aid to navigation, and not essential to fly an ILS, then you are a member of the automatics addiction club. You are to be pitied.:{

I am not able to get this arithmetic. Four sectors a day to be proficient to fly a normal approach with auto trim then how many sectors ( Sim Sessions)required with failures and direct law landing? Also pilots fly more accurately than digital autopilots, Automation is waste of time and money, FMCs do not save fuel. Wouldn't my first aircraft the DC3 with jet engine solve all your problems.

Sabenaboy, unless you can state how much extra fuel they used because of the way they flew their approach you're talking nonsense. Yes, it may have caused you to use more fuel (it's a challenge causing your competitors to use a bit extra but it can be done) but then that may be your fault for not doing something about it earlier.

Anyway, that's not what people mean when they say automation flies more efficiently than you do.

Airbus "handflying"
 

DozyWannabe: A320-330-340-380 FBW Normal Law may have the look and feel of basic handflying, but it's very far from it - loads of protections, loads of nonlinearity of control surface response. Have a look at Normal Law specs.

Gegenbeispiel - I'm well aware of Airbus FBW Normal Law augmentations (hell, just have a look at my post history!), but in practical terms it's not really anything more than an evolution of the artificial feel technology that airliners have been using for over half a century.

Obviously, if you lose the augmentations then you'll need to step up your efforts a bit, but in real terms it's not a great deal different than, say, losing hydraulic assist on a B737. That's why they train for these things in the sim!

Certain carriers prohibit visual approaches to some airfields in Europe. Quit taking cheap shots at other pilots without knowing the full story.

Just Wrong.

It is good to see that one or two people here have got the message. Trying to hand fly in a busy TMA with continual flight path variations and frequency changes loads up the PNF unnecessarily and is positively dangerous. R/T gets missed and checks get rushed, both can be fatal.


You are joking aren't you?


Sabenaboy - Pray tell us more about the Ryanair in front of you at Corfu. How many times had the pilot flying been there before? Was it a check ride? Was it a pilot under training? What is the Ryanair SOP for Corfu? You sound rather intolerant.

No, pointless procedures do that.

And maybe not "more accurately", but with "more finesse" for sure, and that's only if they're good.