Hi John,

It's been discussed a lot on other threads (a few examples here):
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/37979...-airlines.html
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/35175...ing-tests.html
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...raining-4.html
http://www.pprune.org/middle-east/22...fly-plane.html

There is no argument 'for' automation other then for chief pilots not wanting to deal with high time pilot attitude. That's it. So they cull for scared FOs that will push buttons and stay scared, controlled, always listening to the captain, always taking orders.

Nothing scares a chief pilot more then some 10,000 hour pilot calling him on his bull****, especially as another jackscrew mishap, or one of his robots adjusting the seat takes out out a plane load of people.

What pisses me off is that the FAA is in on it.

First of all, thanks, Slam for the video of the AA pilot's briefing/presentation.

My feeling is that AA was reacting to the Cali accident, when entering a confusing waypoint turned the plane the wrong way. Although realizing the jet was turning the wrong way, and then coming back to the desired course, they continued the descent. The end result was still heartbreaking to me, as I knew the A/C very well.

The issue is not the FBW systems. I can't think of any heavy planes that have flown since the 70's that had exclusive mechanical linkages to the control surfaces. Seems most had simple hydraulic valves at the bottom of the yoke that moved actuators via pressure. There were some real mechanical connections like cables, pulleys, pushrods and such for some surfaces. But the primary control surfaces, the big ones, were pure hydraulics. Feedback seemed to be springs and such to provide "feel". Same as I flew for many years in lites.

A quote from a pilot some time ago:-

“the machine that we will be handling will become increasingly automated; we must therefore learn to work as a team with automation;
a robot is not a leader in the strategic sense of the term, but a remarkable operator;
humans will never be perfect operators even if they indisputably have the capabilities to be leaders;

strategy is in the pilot’s domain, but not necessarily tactics;
the pilot must understand why the automation does something, and the necessary details of how;

it must be possible for the pilot to immediately replace the automaton, but only if he has the capability and can do better;
whenever humans take control, the robot must be eliminated;

the pilot must be able to trust automation;
acknowledge that it is not human nature to fly;
it follows that a thinking process is required to situate oneself, and in the end, as humiliating as it may be, the only way to insure safety is to use protective barriers” (1996)

PEI3721
I find your comments the most sensible on this topic. What you said is writing on the wall and must be accepted. Everyone else have exercised their right to have an opinion but mostly it is in form of their own preferences, prejudices and lament. Thanks.

While I also mostly agree with that quote, why is it that that is the writing on the wall while everyone else's view is only "opinion"? Isn't that just your, er, opinion? ;) As an aside, through the years I have noticed that pilots enamoured of "A" products usually have opinions similar to that above, while pilots who prefer flying "B" aircraft tend have a more jaundiced/cynical view.

Personally, whether they happen to fly A or B products I prefer pilots who view automation as a mere tool, very useful but still at their service (and not a crutch to be relied on). I trust the guys/gals who retain a firm grasp of the essentials of aviation (aviate, navigate, communicate!) and with the skills/confidence necessary to switch to lower and simpler levels of automation as required, right down to manual flight -which is exactly what Airbus recommends by the way. This requires solid basics of flight, loads of experience, and a good knowledge of one's aircraft's thrust settings and attitudes, which probably means that once in a while you remember to click everything off and hand fly it! :}

Of course that is just my opinion...

It's OK John, he's not a pilot so not expected to know.

Just my comment:

I fly medium and short range out of the UK. I don´t get the comments posted here: a pilot who flies more raw data ils than others is a better pilot? Come on, be professional. I NEVER had the feeling the guy next to me was unable to fly or control the airplane. NEVER. We fly challenging approaches: Salzburg, Innsbruck, Bastia, Dubrovnik, Olbia, Funchal and so on. I have always seen and flown safe approaches and landings.

I believe keeping up the skills is important. Flying visual approaches is the greatest thing on earth and our company encourages us to do so in nice weather. But truly flying for me is like swimming: i learned it, i practice it and i can do it. I believe in my skills. So mavericks and overconfident pilots whats your problem? Be professional. Dont fly raw data in :mad: weather conditions to prove yourself. Stay with the automatics. And nice argument in posts before: i wouldnt place my family in your aircraft when flying raw data at minimum weather. No way.

And please dont tell me the stories of no FD in stormy weather with minimum visibility and heavy crosswind. In this case you should have enough extra fuel to divert and do a safe landing somewhere else. Otherwise you shouldnt sit in that damn cockpit.

So i dont fly long range but i could imagine that the jockeys there are not that much proficient. For sure: my friend on the 747 makes maxiumum 3 landings a month with autopilot on till 500ft agl. You can't be really proficient that way.

Sometimes i think we could improve out landings and techniques. I have seen a thousand of them with a too early thrust reduction, the damn autothrust reducing to early the power, no flare at all, too long etc. I think we should improve in this section not in flying the perfect raw data ils and :mad: up the landing.

Thanks and comments appreciated


PS: Excuses for my bad english, it´s not my native language

Boeing recommends F/D and autopilot for the heavy jet I fly so that's good enough for me. If you want to "hobby fly", rent a Cessna.

Oxymoron in there, methinks...

For the heavy jet I'm paid to operate :ok:

Good point. :ok:

the video mentions 'navdatabase errors"...

you have no idea....

with RNP and GBAS...the procedures and coding are there, from enroute, approach, missed, and EO missed..

other threads have shown the 'issues' with understanding of EO missed, yet it can be right there in the box. (I would suppose that unfortunately, while it is figured in the box, if you lose the box, you are screwed)

There are many airports in the world where there is no approach or departure procedure other than RNP, and that trend will continue in Chna, South America, and other developing areas. (and if RAIM doesnt check before DEP, you are not going to that airport)

dont discount the tech...learn how to optimize it for your use.

You, a pilot, actually fly your airplane? Gasp, shock, horror; I didn't think we were allowed to do that anymore, only to "operate".. ;) Take cover and standby for the usual brigade of "you dangerous, crazy macho"!

Fifteen years of airline flying and I have yet to come across a rambo-pilot who wanted to hand-fly when inappropriate (low vis/ceiling, traffic, fatigued, windshear or tech problems), that simply doesn't happen. However I have witnessed plenty who would always pass up on perfect chances to polish their skills and work on their instrument scan (cavok, no traffic or tech problems, no fatigue issues). They inevitably click on the A/P at minimum engagement altitude and leave it engaged until minimums. Usually with a sheepish comment like "it flies better than I do anyway" or "they don't really want us to hand-fly"...

As john_smith says, use it or lose it. :ok:

FlightPath:

That video was made when RNP AR was just a gleam in daddy's eye.:)

I can only speak to the U.S. about RNP AR IAP databases. The verification and "flyability" process required for each qualified FMS gives a lot more assurance that, at least, RNP AR IAPs are both coded correctly and will fly correctly.

Okay, the above is one extreme, which could/should be rectified to let the poor FOs try their hand a bit more often, whether they like it or not, you could call it . . . .yes, that`s it . . training. Surely a pilot in such a state needs training - throw in some mandatory training on manual handling.

I want to make another point, which could be personal, or, maybe not.

I have seen pilots progress on from light twins and singles to greater things like . .airliners. They then come back and ask to do the necessary to maintain their PPL in a light single, C152/172/PA28 say.

I always ask myself, why do they want to do that? Why sweat through years of hard graft to make it to the airlines, after having gone through all that training (and money) only to toddle back on your day off for reval and check out on the aircraft where it all started?

I thought I was an aviation person, but I do not share bimbling around in a single when one has progressed onto greater things.

Why not marry your airbus rather than come back to puddle jumpers . . .?

There must be loads of opportunity in day to day life of just flying manually - for example, in the sim, or when doing mandatory training, check outs in the aircraft, command conversion training . .etc., etc., that sort of thing.

As soon as the base training is over and they have had a sector or two - they come flying back as if reaching for momma. What is it that makes pilots do this? Is it perhaps that after being so hammered and beaten up in training they come back just to prove to the world - that they can in fact fly, just as well, all on their lonesome?

I realise I am going to get criticised for this - but does no one share my view?

No......all flying is fun. All flying has its boring bits. Going to an Airbus/Boeing/Whatever doesn't end flying in Cessna/Piper/Extra/Whatever. Are you a pilot or ego-driven SJS slave?

What are you talking about? What the hell is SJS?

ALL flying is not fun to everyone. Fancy flying in a balloon? A Zeppelin?

Do you therefore enjoy flying in every single aircraft?

Well, fine, stuff yourself full of one particular aircraft for ages and then you might want to fly something else.

ALL flying is fun, is it :mad:!

All flying what you want to fly is fun.