Hand flying in todays jet transports
 

There are operators in the Middle East and Asia known for their propensity to mandate as SOP no manual flying, except for the few minutes of take off and the landing from short final. Inevitably, the natural result is increasing automatics dependency among their crews. Nevertheless, many of these operators enjoy a good flight safety record.

One letter writer to the editor of Aviation Week and Space Technology (January 29-February11, 2018), makes the following astute observation, however.

"Lack of mechanical breakdowns is way ahead of pilot qualifications or experience resulting in increased safety. Challenge today's pilot with hand-flown non-precision approaches (in a simulator, of course) to see the truth of pilot experience now."

Few would disagree with his sentiment in the light of increasingly sophisticated jet transports coupled with low experience pilots direct from flying schools, now coming into the industry.

Hand flown NPA? Ha! How about a traffic pattern? Ever seen an automation junkie try to fly a traffic pattern?

Quite.

Do not allow hand-flying in modern aircraft and then expect a good result after a double hyd or emerg elec config in an Airbus.

You are joking, of course.

Hand flown NPA? Ha!

B732, in 80's, dive & drive hand flown NDB was an annual sim check. Hand flown SRA on line was not uncommon. Hand flown everything else, weather permitting, was the norm and expected. An airline with pilots in management meant they expected pilots to be able to handle what was thrown at them, thinking on the spot. They expected and demanded sharp skills both in mind & hand. It was an excellent time, having come from GA ops, to be an apprentice in jet airline ops. The equipment, in the air & on the ground in some places, was basic, but the crews were well up to it.
It is sad and disappointing to see that giant leaps in technology has seen a corresponding decline in piloting skills. There is absolutely no need for it. Not all companies allow it. There are still those who encourage the old ethos. The decline in skills is not a technology issue it is a Flt Ops & training culture within the airline. I flew old & new tech and my skills were kept sharp, even sharper, until they were not allowed to be by handcuffing SOP's. I know of mates who are allowed to fly their B747 like I flew B733. I know of others who fly their B737NG like a play station, because they have to. Don't blame the engineers and designers, blame the Flt Ops managers.

Its not just some Asian and ME Carriers who mandate almost continuous Automatic route flying.
British Airways SOPs ban any manual route handling.(Manual flight defined as, manual control of speed and flightpath)
BA SOPs dictate continuous Auto-throttle on all types except the B744..

I guess some of this stems from RVSM airspace.

Not talking about cruise flight! There’s no RVSM on hand flown approaches and landings, which BA crews are banned from practicing down route!

On the 737 NG:
I make my students hand fly manually FD and AT off all the way till cruise alt during line training, same for the descent. Feel the aircraft, get to know te difference between Mach and IAS. Then a visual pattern into a Greek island, all manually raw data. No rules in my company limitting the use of automation, manual flying strongly encouraged. In general manual flying skills are very good.
We do have other problems though.
PS I am familiar with RVSM requirements

Manual flight = Manual thrust

But to be true, my FLT OPS dep has changed that philosophy more than 10 times. Both A & B, EU legacy carrier;)

cessnapete - Please expand on that BA SOP...

Cough
During route flying on all types except B744, BA SOP only permit manual control of flight path. Speed control continues to mandate full time auto thrust, even when autopilot disengaged.

You were.

Perhaps English isn't your first language. Saying route flying implies aircraft in the en-route phase of flight. i.e. not on approach/departure.

cessnapete - Are you a BA pilot?

Lots of "interesting" manual approaches in the biz jet world. Innsbruck, Chambery, Mandelieu, (there are also plenty of VERY exciting ones for the littler jets; but I was on CL604's) plus NPA's at for example Freeport Bahamas dodging some very big CB's on the way in.

PAR approaches are always hand flown. One to minimums in rain and strong winds is a challenge for both pilot and PAR controller. Done a few to mins in those conditions at ETAR and KNHK. Good times.

Hhm, I may be wrong, but if memory serves me right, more incidents/accidents were on "Auto" and goofing it up, not on manual flights...

Load of rubbish. Reliably informed the auto thrust thing is true, otherwise you can do what you want.

I despair at my company. Every time I ask the F/O if he/she would like to do some hand flying they make excuses and bottle out. When I (CRM) ask if they mind if I have a play, it's again, a load of excuses, such as too tired, or weather's not perfect... or they'll report me!

Not banned in the manuals, but generally they're too frightened of FDM or more specifically management's response to FDM if they have an event.

I come from TP and GA and have hand flown smoothly and accurately all my 30 years at the controls. Never an issue till I landed at this company. (won't be here long if I can help it!). UK operator. B737/B757.

I’m told that turning the FD’s off at FR unless instructed to do so by a check list ( unreliable airspeed) is a disciplinary act.

Manual handling is defined as pilot control of speed and flight path. Not possible when full time use of auto thrust is mandatory SOP.

For the pedants, route flying, I mean mainly approach and landings. Modern jet aircraft obviously designed to be flown on autopilot in cruise.

I suppose practice once or twice a year in the sim is ok??

Some of these requirements I believe are driven by the Marketing Department, don't want to spill the champers now do we or scare the passengers with power changes. We (that's the Marketing Gurus) think the auto pilot will do it more smoothly so best you pesky pilots let it get on with the job. And about that PA, you need to sharpen up on that too. FFS

I think folk need to reflect: I am not saying it is right or wrong but modern airline piloting is about conducting a flight effeciently rather than actually flying.

If a pilot actually wants to fly an aircraft hands-on, on a regular basis, then an airline in todays skies is not the place to be.

As far as automation is concerned, would anybody welcome back cars that had manual chokes and manual ignition timing adjustment? Would any of us in our modern automatic cars want to go back to manual gearboxes, and a paper map on the passenger seat?

I am more than happy for the FADECs on the aircraft I fly to ensure safe and consistent engine starts, and give a decent autothrust, and for the FBW to remove the pitch/power couple and trim for me while I monitor it and other factors in todays busy airspace.

But manual skills must be maintained: I have often suggested that like we used to have to record 3 autolands every 6 months, the CAA should now mandate at least 3 manual/manual approaches, interception and landings every 6 months.

I've never owned an automobile with an automatic transmission. You seem to be taking it for granted that everyone does. And for the record, if faced with a choice, I'd take a manual transmission.

I don't know if that is true or not, but with the majority of flying being done by automation these days, that fact (If it is indeed a fact) is meaningless without the context of how many more accidents manual vs auto compared to how much time is spent in manual flying vs automated flight.

It's like saying motorcycles are safer than cars because fewer total people are killed on motorcycles than are killed in cars.

I hand flew a 737 from AMS to HAM once. Just for the heck of it. Great fun. It was right about the time that the Asiana SFO final report came out, so we had been discussing hand flying skills.
I am lucky. My company actively encourages hand flying big jets. And so does atc at my home base Schiphol. You can request a visual approach anytime. Also when flying heavies.
Downwind 06 with a short turn in. Ils 27 breakoff 24. Vectors for base 36R, visual turn in. Etc.
Also, when trasitioning from one type to another, the first 4 sim are raw data low level flying all the way. To ensure you get a feeling for the new airplane. This is company policy.

I have joined a company where the fleet and type of operation is completely new. We will be arriving at both ends at our worst state of mind (completely boll***sed). The Chief Pilot has stated he expects automation to be used 99% of the time. There are situations that demand it and the type and style of operation would dictate it.

Thereby breeding the next generation of automation zombies... :ugh:

Uplinker
I would add efficiently and safely. So the decision to manually fly must be to enhance safety by acquiring or maintaining the skill. All other times it should be on automation. So a blanket ban is as bad as complete freedom.

Manual flying of the occasional approach or departure, weather and workload permitting is not a bad idea and there are many studies highlighting the need to preserve "basic flying skills", being prepared, and able to reduce the level of automation in non-normal situations is taken a read these days. On the other hand, hand flying jet transports above 10,000 simply increases the workload of the PM, reduces capacity and reduces the safety margin. If you feel you need to do this, get a horse and live in the wild west.

When I (CRM) ask if they mind if I have a play, it's again, a load of excuses, such as too tired, or weather's not perfect... or they'll report me!

If you are PIC and commander why do you have to ask permission from F/O to hand fly an approach? That is 'supposed CRM' gone mad. Announce you are disconnecting and just get on with it.
Just curious about the operator, but you can keep it anonymous. I don;t know all B737/757 operators, but those that come to mind I thought encouraged such antics.

Such a vast amount of "male member" waving going on in here its amazing!


Uplinker's comments make sense at least to me, and whilst it is obviously desirable to be able to fly any aircraft with no automatics and with a high degree of accuracy - its a different world out there. The same automatics and assistance that everyone is so happily de-riding is also one of the reasons that aviation generally is enjoying a year-on-year improvement in its safety record. If automation wasn't assisting aviation then I very much doubt that aircraft and avionics manufacturers would continue to build such aircraft and the various legislators continue to approve such equipment use.


I think this thread has descended (as always happens) into more about individuals wanting to appear the "hand flying hero's" fighting the good fight against the evil automatons that they think fly today's aircraft.:rolleyes:

I knew a guy who flew HS 748's for Emerald airways around 2001.......a UK contract/ad-hoc cargo operation that mostly operated at night.

He pretty much flew permanent night shifts, and I once commented to him that it must be nice flying when it's quiet everywhere. He replied that it would be, but half the fleet of 748's had inop autopilots, and they hand flew the sectors most of the time.

The outfit lost it's AOC a few years after and was wound up.

Diluted manual skills is not the fault of automation; it is the fault of Flt Ops management and the training department, i.e. culture. That is obvious after comparing company cultures. More automation allows more efficient and perhaps safer operations: i.e. when properly trained and up to speed on the FULL use of automatics. It allows a calm relaxed oversight and management of the operation. OTOH the wonderful nav displays and large accurate PFD's allow more accurate and satisfying manual manoeuvring in 3D than in needles & dials. That was Skill + Art; modern EFIS a/c is primarily just skill.
Airlines want all flights to be safe for their pax; not surprisingly the pax want the same thing, and joining in, so do the crew. But when Murphy steps into the game the company & the pax expect the crew to sort it out, save the day and deliver them somewhere safely. The company has a duty of care to everyone & everything to make that outcome more likely than not.
Do they fulfil that? I do not think all operators do. I believe there is a risk management model at work which assesses that technology/reliability & robust SOP's have reduced the likelihood of a pilot not being able to intervene, in that rare moment, to very small that maintaining manual flying skills in a degraded a/c is not required.
What does concern me is when HAL goes awry and the pilot, in ignorance, attempts to intervene and makes things worse, and then develops a descending spiral which requires disconnection of HAL completely and the human to short out the mess. Then we shall find the policy wanting. IMHO the pax, and so should the company, expect the crew to be an insurance policy for when things go wrong. They've paid their premiums and expect it to pay out when needed. I'd be mighty hacked off if the policy proved to be worthless.

OCAS I think you've completly missed the point.

Whilst the level of automation today is indeed impressive, all crews need to be able to posses the skills to take control manually during any phase of flight. It's only a 'risk' if pilots are having to work much harder than they should to 'pole' the aircraft. AP-out and a manually flown approach say 3 times a year should be allowed and encouraged. Yes, PM may become a little busier than with AP-in, but good practice for him too.

Lots of different opinions being expressed here, so I add mine;

Flying manual or automatic should mean no difference in safety level.
Unfortunately I don't think that is the case out there in the big world.

Pilots will simply never agree in this matter.

Some call it "hand flying heroes", other call it "do pilot ****"

Is this true?

SIM session in an A300

- FO flying ILS, FD ON
- At minimums (200) rwy not in sight, TOGA
- TOGA switches activated
- Engines spooled up to TOGA
- Instructor failed the FD pitch command switch... (nasty)
- FO tracking the GA track nicely but kept full blast the nose down following the FD command
- CPT took over.....


Lesson learned

Why would you get a reduced safety margin in an airspace without any uncontrolled traffic? Honest question. Might be different where you fly, but in my home country everything above FL100 is Class C airspace.

Uplinker,

You say:

"If a pilot actually wants to fly an aircraft hands-on, on a regular basis, then an airline in todays skies is not the place to be."

But also,

"But manual skills must be maintained"

As I see it, that's a contradiction. How can someone maintain their manual skills (let alone build them in the first place) without flying on a regular basis? Maybe you speak as someone who flew low tech aircraft for decades where it was "sink or swim," and from that have lodged some permanence of those skills into your brain; but if that's so, you're missing the obvious case of someone just starting out.

I'm at my first airline a little over a year, and here we fly usually 3-5 legs per day, 15 days per month. So the opportunities are there, and I take full advantage of them. I probably use the autopilot the least of the whole pilot group of 2000. By now I'm very comfortable and confident flying visually, but not so in IMC: it still takes my full concentration, I'm not always smooth (even when the air is), and I have airspeed/vertical/lateral deviations that come during lapses of attention on that parameter and are then quickly corrected with a jerk. All the hallmarks of a task saturated rookie. (And given the low percentage of the time that it's IMC and we're not coming down a complicated arrival where I need the autopilot, it's what can only be expected.) But on the overall, I can hold it together.

If that is the (moderate) level to which I have so far developed by flying as much as I can, what can everybody else do? What 90% of the captains do 90% of the time is to only turn the autopilot off below 1000 feet, configured and on speed. No turns, no level offs, no speed changes, no flap changes, no course interceptions or tracking, no altitude holding, no nothing. Just click the button and fly it in a straight line following the flight director till it's time to flare. Including on the clearest and calmest of days into the quietest airports! It's bewildering.

And I have no reason to assume that most other FO's are doing anything but following this example. So given my experience (and before I came to the airlines, I already had a few thousand hours of very hands-on flying) how comfortable and able in their flying can most of these guys become? Especially the large segment of them who came to the CRJ from single engine Cessnas with a smattering of Seminole time. How, in this scenario, is anybody supposed to learn to fly the airplane, much less become comfortable in it?

You suggest that a minimum standard of 1 approach without autopilot be performed every other month, and I find that to be absurdly low.

I wrote this post during a commute and since I got to look at the thread last, someone else suggested an autopilot-off approach every 4 months! And that's a hand flying advocate! Honestly that suggestion as an improvement is completely shocking to me. Here's to hoping that's some strange British sarcasm that flew over my head.

Vbot you make some very good points

I’m surprised that what to me is the most salient one has not been raised

There is simply no question Pilots should be hand flying on a regular basis. Currency is the very foundation of our competence

It’s amazing that there’s so much controversy over this

But getting back to my point, why did you become a Pilot ?
To watch automation 99% of the time ?

My initial motivation was and remains the simple delight and satisfaction In accurate, smooth hand flying, there seems to be a school of thought now that is old fashioned thinking not in sync with modern aircraft

That is nonsense and the reason we have had crashes like the 737 in Amsterdam and the 777 in San Francisco, Pilots that literally don’t know how to fly using automation as a crutch, unable to push the throttles forward to save themselves from a stall, it’s unbelievable

I hear these statements like ‘modern aircraft are designed to be flown on autopilot’ That’s just a cop out, you should be as competent flying manually with autothrottles off
as you are doing a full autoland

There should be no conflict there, and if the PM cannot keep up with your call outs and duties while you are hand flying he or she should find another line of work