westhawk;

Re, "I've heard this technique referred to as "looking through the FD" too."

Yes, that's exactly what it was/is. That applies today, even on Airbus aircraft.

The best demonstration of this phenomenon is (in the sim), flying a raw-data ILS in poor vis or at night with a bit of wind/turbulence.

While it can be done quite well, if one isn't practiced at it, keeping the LOC and GS centered presents quite a challenge.

However, with the FDs on, one "subliminally" sees the movement of the FD and "anticipates" in the manner you described, making the job a lot easier. One is still "flying through" the FDs, focusing on the small pitch, roll and heading changes as they affect the ILS indications but the FDs are of significant assistance if one uses them this way.

Again, the Airbus FDs are indicating what the autoflight would do if engaged and so appear (but are not actually as this is just software, not a human being!), "anticipatory" in that the autoflight system (and therefore the FD system) senses imperceptible deflections of the ILS and the actual PFD indications are smaller than may be initially perceived by the PF - but the FDs respond and their deflections are visible and so can help maintain the flight path, without "leading" the pilot on a leash...so to speak.

"Looking through" the FD requires time to learn; it doesn't mean one is ignoring the FDs, it means that their indications are appropriately "psychologically placed" and used at various learned levels of awareness. In my view they aren't, in the end, necessary, but they are an enormous aid in many though not all circumstances.

One tends to ignore the FDs, (looking past them and not just through) in transient moments of energy changes where the FDs do not know what is coming next but the pilot does, or should! In my view, the most important example for understanding this is the AF 447 accident.

I don't mean to criticise you personally Ttex600 because I don't know what else was said. But hypothetically, if manual flying is uncommon at an airline, and a capt decides to do some raw data flying without any verbal preamble at all, I'd be a little scared too. Not of the aircraft, but of what other random ideas the guy to my left is going to throw into the cockpit without warning.

Not every reticent FO is a child of the magenta line. The conversations that captains foster, are the most useful learning tool for me.

Any pilot that can not hand fly an approach easily should not be flying an airplane in my opinion. They should not be allowed in the cockpit. What do you think if automation quits?

Automation is making pilots not pilots but programmers. We need to fix this. Pilots that can not fly without automation are dangerous. AF 447 showed that, neither one knew how to hand fly. The only qualified pilot was taking his rest break.

As a "light" pilot with a few thousand hours in single-seat jets, I am wondering how the "flight director" displays are supposed to work.

I never flew a jet for a long time that had the same "flight director" stuff that folks in the T-38 had. So I had been trained in the T-33 and such.

Our primitive flight director stuff was a needle on the large ADI and was only for heading/course interception of a radial or the ILS centerline. Crude, back in 60's, but decent. Then to the A-7D and same old flight director gizmo needle on the ADI that I had not seen, being a T-33 troop back in 1965.

The best thing I ever saw was the A-7's flight path marker in our HUD. Not familiar to many here from the "commercial" community, seems to me. You could see the exact place where the jet was going - not attitude, but actual flight path with respect to local level, or the Earth.

As with many here, I agree that the pilots must demonstrate "basic" instrument and visual flying competence, regardless of all the "aids" and "commands" and such.

My carrier employs a far greater percentage of "cowboy" pilots than almost any other jet transport aircraft flying airline in existence. A lot of pilots, maybe not a majority but a significant number, handfly often. Turning the FD's off is about all I can find to explain his concerns.

He was briefed BTW, and in exactly the same briefing that I gave him permission and encouragement to to the same.

PS. The top third of our sen list were/are all high time DC9 Captains with a large percentage of us originating in a Learjet night freight environment. I'm certain that hand flying is quite common. Hope that sheds a bit more light.

Sorry to disappoint. It happened. Take it or leave it.

If I may nitpick a little - while the process is indeed hard-wired, the output could be considered as a process of "reason[ing]" and "know[ledge]". Where you're absolutely correct is that the results of said process are only as good as the data being fed into it, as well as the fact that the artificial reasoning process is by its very nature circumscribed in terms of what it can handle. This is why modern autoflight systems are designed so that they will not only disengage if those parameters are exceeded, but will also not permit re-engagement until those parameters are returned to within those limits.

The human brain is infinitely better at recognising and coping with such abnormal situations, and that fact underpins the notion that electronic aids like the FD should never be trusted blindly - if it looks wrong, it probably is.

As do Boeing, and probably most if not all of the others. :)

That's a common misconception. Airbus's FMC/autoflight setup is no more complicated or clever than anyone else's. Envelope protection is a feature of both Airbus and Boeing's FBW systems (albeit implemented differently), and with apologies for sounding like a broken record, do not confuse FBW with automation!

The industry-wide push for adoption of automation originated with the airlines, not with Airbus, or for that matter, any other manufacturer. PJ2 wrote a wonderfully concise post a while back on the encroachment of the MBA generation on airline management, and now as then I concur completely with his assessment.

If you can't fly without FD command bars you end up like AF447. Make sure you agree with what they are telling you before blindly following them. You shouldn't need them if you are a real pilot so why follow them if they are wrong?

I won't repeat the flight with the check airman totally screwing up my FD so I ignored it and flew our clearance raw data until he caught up. It was go into a diving left turn or a climbing right turn which was our clearance. He finally caught up. He was checking me out as a 767 captain. He never said a word about his screw up. I passed and everybody was happy.

Tex600: I believe it did. I hope you didn't take any offence, or anything else
-ve, none intended. It was more complimentary than anything else. Good heart-warming stories here are hard to find.

I never turn the FD off. Hand fly every departure and most arrivals below 10,000'. At some point hand flying at higher altitudes is not teaching an experienced pilot anything. New guys? Sure, learn the difference in pitch sensitivity as altitude and mach increase. Old timers? Waste of time and effort.

Sometimes during high work load departures/arrivals, like thunderstorms, AP might be used to decrease workload as necessary. That's what it's there for, a balance of workload vs. manual skills maintenance.

Do I USE the FD all the time? No. Ignore it when necessary("look past"). It's not that tough.

SOP requires FD on for takeoff. Boeing - "the FD pitch command is not used for rotation." In other words, you have to look past it. :ok:

Waste of time and effort.

Even if those of us who prefer short sectors to forever and a day passage making find it great fun and, right or wrong, believe that it assists in maintaining that je ne sais quoi hands on finesse nicety.

"Never turn the FD off" ? "Hand fly every departure and most arrivals below 10,000." Horses for courses. Enthusiastic pilots will normally jump at the opportunity to switch of the FD and hand fly where possible. Keeps the instrument scan skills honed. On the other hand it could be argued a complete waste of time hand flying while glueing your concentration on a FD. Isn't this what the original post was all about?

As far as practicing hand flying at high altitudes, if the two French first officers that crashed the A330 into the South Atlantic has ever practiced hand flying at high altitude either in real life or in the simulator, it is probable 200 plus people would be alive today. if a pilot cannot confidently hand fly straight and level at high altitude because it might upset the passengers coffee then what an indictment on the company training system. Old timers waste of time and effort? Don't you believe it. Mostly they are too lazy and know they lack the confidence, finesse and handling skills needed to fly smoothly and accurately at high altitude.
But these characters would never ever admit it but are quick to denigrate those pilots who have the enthusiasm, ability and determination to be on top of their flying.
To clarify. No one is demanding that a pilot should fly for hours by hand with or without the other automatic features such as FD in place. But if people are serious about rectifying what the FAA have finally said after all these years and numerous LOC crashes, that one way to prevent automation addiction (affects maybe 85 percent of glass cockpit crews), then a spot of regular manual flying is the way to fix the problem. 5-10 minutes out of every hour in high level cruise hand flying is better than nothing at all assuming of course the rules permit (RVSM etc).

I really think flying manually with the FD on is a total useless exercise,(except maybe for ILS)any monkey could do that.
There is time for the FD and AP to be engaged( RNaV dep..) and time to fly all off...
I have had fos trying to fly through the FD..only thing it does is offtrack during rnav departure...following this see through flying...a FD off AP off is proposed during descent by asking for vectors..most accept,some are persuaded,some dont want.

In my opinion I think That FD sould be used as an aid to make the job easier, but never ever forget how to fly a plane, as a good captain once said to me "machines tent to brake and a jet is a complex machine that will have some failures", the FD te AP can fail, a pilot must be competent in flying the plane manually, if you can't track a VOR an ILS maintain altitude, attitude, heading, speed, fly any SID STAR or visual approach etc...he sould not be near a plane.

Manual flying with a FD is not manual flying because you don't have to scan your instruments. Manual flying is looking at your instruments and using your manual flying skills to accomplish what you are doing. It is simple unless you have no manual flying skills. Then you shouldn't be in the cockpit in the first place.

From the onset of training, the trainer should emphasize the FD are nothing more than tool for guidance. During line training, a new pilot will gain better experience and confidence by reinforcing the four fundamentals of flight without the aide of the FDs.

I encourage my F/Os to perform manual flight without A/T or FDs upto RVSM territory and from TOD to landing. 3 for one planning plus X miles for descent and visual approaches when possible. No Pablo Picassos in the FMC for patterns, nor runway extensions for landing.

Captjns,

That is all well and good for you're aircraft type and operation.

Mine however, it is prohibited to perform things like FD takeoff. (unless required and in accordance with the MEL)

In all honesty I think on the Airbus types you would be far better of drumming into new pilots the importance of FMA changes and mode awareness.

The automation is there to help us, and make the operation safer and more efficient.

The challenge is to adequately monitor the performance of these systems and to fully understand their objectives and limitations.

Personally flying around with all the kit of in the busy TMA I don't see does anything other than reduce overall SA.

Just to lighten up the thread. if anyone can find the link to 'Space Cowboys- Flying brick'. It will bring a smile to your faces. If someone can find a link to post it here it might spread the word. It is in 2 parts; 1st is a 'cock-up', the 2nd is tongue in cheek successful.

Pilots that depend on automation are not real pilots.

Absolutely - but pilots who are not completely on top of the automatics and comfortable using them where appropriate are also not real pilots.

It is not either/or - it is both.

This is undoubtedly true, and is the reason why modern training emphasises such aspects as careful FMA monitoring and both crewmembers checking FMS programming.

However, recently as an industry we seem to be losing airplanes not because of automation mismanagement, but rather because when the automation "gives up the ghost" (and sooner or later it always does), guys seem to have forgotten how to actually fly the airplane.

The point of the thread -I think- is that there are very few (if any) pilots uncomfortable using automation nowadays, but try switching off A/P F/D A/T and watch the sweat start to roll... we have definitely gone too far in one direction.

MD I agree. All of us should have no problem taking over if automation fails. If you can't you aren't capable of being PIC. Automation can fail at any time and we need a real pilot to take care of things.

What an interesting scenario: Me reading carefully through all of this nurturing thread and appreciating the comments and lessons for where the time comes for me to fly a glass cockpit aircraft and in the mean time, flying a Twin Otter without any kind of automation whatsoever!

Funny stuff...

My point was that I see all the time, both training and on line, people who only need to revert to "old fashioned" flying because they have screwed up the selections - there is nothing wrong with the automatics. They are increasing their own and the rest of the crew's workload unnecessarily. And then they often blame the system saying "it failed" when it is working as advertised.

I agree entirely with needing to be completely proficient on hand flying as well for the rare occasions where it does fail, or in the corporate environment the commoner situation where you need to fly a profile that the AP/FD system cannot cope with.

As I said, it is both, not either/or.

AF447 pilots didn't screw up the automation, the automation failed. Can't you see that? They were left with an aircraft with no automation and neither one could fly it manually. Everybody died because nobody could hand fly in the cockpit. It was an easy fix for anybody that could hand fly, they couldn't. Make our pilots really know how to fly the airplane before letting them fly if automation doesn't work. It is quite simple.

EP, I know you could have flown AF447 with no problem, it doesn't fly much different than a Twin Otter, just higher, never let them lose your flying skills, I didn't. Old twin beach 18 and Boeing 737 guy talking from experience.

Ended up in the B757 and 767 however with the same way of flying. Always flew a while when things were not busy flying wet compass and emergency standby instruments to make sure I hadn't lost the skill to fly without the magic s*it. We all should if we want to be considered real pilots. You don't have to stare at the magenta line if you don't want to.

Years ago, nice severe clear days, only a/c in the sky, lovely quiet Canary islands airport, visual circuit to an ILS, long runway, perfect for the practice: once I'd convinced the apprentice that a programmed LNAV circuit was not necessary, but rather use Mk.1 eyeball, there was the question of "how will I know when to turn in?" "suck it and see, same as a cherokee." Nicely on profile on base leg and on speed I informed the apprentice that the ILS had failed and it would be a pilot guided/controlled final approach. As the FD's were not locked onto anything they should be switched off. Shock horror. Some enjoyed it, others made complaints to CP. I was told not to do training on line flights without a full briefing.
Those who shouted 'shock horror' were the same ones who always chose the bumpy weather arrivals because it would be 'sportive'. They were also the ones who flew their sportive approach to 300' on autopilot and then disconnected to 'save the day' at the last minute. The culture of the pilot corps will be created from the top. Sadly there are some questionable influences at the top.

Not being proficient in manual flying because you don't need to with all the you beaut automatic goodies, reminds me of the bloke that says you will drown if you can't swim. So, rather than teach you how to swim I will teach you how not to go near the water...:ugh:

No, read the post properly.:ugh:

This is not an AF447 thread; it is about whether the FD can cause people to lose sight of what they should be scanning.

I am saying that you need to be able to fly the aircraft manually, but also be able to use the automatics properly when it's appropriate. You don't get any prizes for showing what a superhero you are by flying manually when the only reason the automatics tripped off is because of your own incompetence.

I certainly concur with your observations in re "it's about both, not either." Despite this entirely rational and reasonable approach to aviation, at some point after all the licenses are obtained and one is working in commercial aviation, airline managements, airline pilot associations and, despite recent actions even the regulators are not ensuring that pilots know how to fly an airplane and are testing knowledge of auto flight systems. The one or two manual handling exercises appear more to be concessions to history than actual meaningful exercises in maintaining physical and cognitive skills required to fly an aircraft well and with deep-down comprehension / anticipation of what one is actually doing.

In fact, in recently speaking with those doing the training and checking work at a major air carrier I am informed that "just flying the airplane" is receding even further back into history as a new generation of pilots who were raised on keyboards and touchscreens and who know little or nothing else about aeronautics rely entirely upon auto flight systems for the basics.

In one sense the BEA made flight directors about AF 447 by positing the notion that the PF slavishly followed their pitch commands, (in my view: the PF did this rather than maintaining cockpit discipline and training by following SOPs, and keeping the PNF in the loop).

The point regarding FDs extends to other accidents as is illustrated below, and I think is relevant to the thread:

From a TSBC Report, (Loss of Control on Go-around):