|
FAA SAFO Guidance to Manual flying proficiency
|
Sounds good on paper but implementation is key. If "training" is a five minute heavily briefed drill in box as opposed to actually encouraging pilots to hand fly more in the real world then nothing much will change.
|
Originally Posted by Tomaski
(Post 10517043)
Sounds good on paper but implementation is key. If "training" is a five minute heavily briefed drill in box as opposed to actually encouraging pilots to hand fly more in the real world then nothing much will change.
Right on point ! However, I suspect some of the skills deterioration might be due to airline management not adhering to this philosophy from the SAFO: "An air carrier’s line operations policy should permit and encourage manual flight operations..." I never understood pilots who didn't want to "fly" the airplane as often as possible. And a few minutes of manual flight a couple of times a year in the sim really won't fix the problem at all. Airline managements need to step up and see what's happening...then do something about it. Same for the line captains. Even low time pilots will develope the skills if only they are encouraged to hand fly and given the opportunity. Nobody is born with these skills. |
I never understood pilots who didn't want to "fly" the airplane as often as possible. The fact is the automatic pilot generally flies more smoothly than the average pilot. You only have to observe a coupled approach compared with a manually flown approach by a rusty pilot to see the remarkable difference in the way the aircraft is flown. One solution is to require simulator sessions to include 50% manual no FD no autothrottle flying and lots of manually flown circuits and landings. You will never get some operators to permit meaningful hand flying on line. The QAR would hang most pilots anyway with an inexhaustible supply of tea and bikkies with management afterwards. |
Originally Posted by sheppey
(Post 10517401)
Depends very much on the enthusiasm of the pilot concerned and attitude of the operator. Once in the cruise and coffee is brought up to the flight deck, most pilots become so relaxed that in the end they simply cannot be bothered to disengage the automatics and hand fly even though ATC conditions would allow it. Then even if a pilot does have a crack at hand flying, chances are he will be rusty and height and speed changes become more obvious. That causes the captain or first officer to become more twitchy about public relations and it all gets too hard. Remember that some pilots can fly smoothly while others are as rough as guts.
The fact is the automatic pilot generally flies more smoothly than the average pilot. You only have to observe a coupled approach compared with a manually flown approach by a rusty pilot to see the remarkable difference in the way the aircraft is flown. One solution is to require simulator sessions to include 50% manual no FD no autothrottle flying and lots of manually flown circuits and landings. You will never get some operators to permit meaningful hand flying on line. The QAR would hang most pilots anyway with an inexhaustible supply of tea and bikkies with management afterwards. |
honing skills to give way to pilotless flight?
|
Originally Posted by bafanguy
(Post 10517096)
Tomaski,
Right on point ! However, I suspect some of the skills deterioration might be due to airline management not adhering to this philosophy from the SAFO: "An air carrier’s line operations policy should permit and encourage manual flight operations..." I never understood pilots who didn't want to "fly" the airplane as often as possible. And a few minutes of manual flight a couple of times a year in the sim really won't fix the problem at all. Airline managements need to step up and see what's happening...then do something about it. Same for the line captains. Even low time pilots will develope the skills if only they are encouraged to hand fly and given the opportunity. Nobody is born with these skills. |
I guarantee that at some airlines one of the first questions would be why the person was hand-flying. |
I might be wrong, and I do enjoy manual flying whenever I can, however my understanding is that inside terminal airspace (RNP 1, RNAV 1), the Flight director must remain on and full use of automation is also recommended.
I don't think that we can comply with RNAV1 or RNP1 without a flight director. I believe RNP1 / RNAV 1 is a navigation requirement that we must comply with, unless obviously some type of unserviceability. |
Your attention is called to MEL22-01C. You can operate with no autopilot for one day. You may also operate with only one FD, but obviously you cannot conduct RNP-AR operations. Thinking back to the good old days...accurate manual flying was expected on the older types as often the autopilot wasn’t up to the task of accurately flying a complex SID, especially one with noise monitoring such as at Zurich. In any case the F/O only had a turn knob or CWS on the 737-200. As I recall the airline still got fined occasionally due to lazy track keeping which would trigger the noise sensors. But very few pilots had suspect stick 'n' rudder skills. In any event, the modern pilot may still have his mojo working, but the risk:reward ratio never seems to be in favour of manual flight. I never see anybody that I fly with voluntarily fly a manoeuvring arrival or departure with crossing restrictions, including me. While I am pretty confident in my skills, my reliability is probably 1in 10E4 at theoretical best. The aeroplane’s autoflight systems are at least two orders of magnitude more reliable. What’s the prudent pilot to do? |
Your attention is drawn to the ICAO PBN manual
On page 185 For RNAV 1 routes, pilots must use a lateral deviation indicator, flight director, or autopilot in lateral navigation mode. For RNP 1 routes, pilots must use a lateral deviation indicator, flight director, or autopilot in lateral navigation mode. Pilots of aircraft with a lateral deviation display must ensure that lateral deviation scaling is suitable for the navigation accuracy associated with the route/procedure (e.g. full-scale deflection: ±1 NM for RNP 1). Your attention is drawn to CAO 20.91. For RNAV 1 routes, a lateral deviation indicator, flight director or autopilot in LNAV mode must be used For RNP 1 routes, a lateral deviation indicator, flight director or autopilot in LNAV mode must be used Pilots of aircraft with a lateral deviation display must ensure that lateral deviation scaling is suitable for the navigation accuracy associated with the route/procedure (e.g. full-scale deflection: ±1 NM for RNAV 1, ±2 NM for RNAV 2, or ±5 NM for TSO-C129() equipment on RNAV 2 routes) Yes, sure, the MEL can allow you to fly without an autopilot and a flight director, but you will not be able to comply with RNP1. RNP 1 is a capability that would have been inserted in the flight plan and so you must comply. If the autopilot and/or Flight director fails, then you don't have any choice but you would also have to advise ATC of your reduced NAV PBN capability. |
Most SIDs/STARs required FDs nowadays. But you can always required conventional SIDs/STARs or Radar vectors to ATC to practice hand flying. |
Originally Posted by John Citizen
(Post 10518760)
I might be wrong, and I do enjoy manual flying whenever I can, however my understanding is that inside terminal airspace (RNP 1, RNAV 1), the Flight director must remain on and full use of automation is also recommended.
I don't think that we can comply with RNAV1 or RNP1 without a flight director. I believe RNP1 / RNAV 1 is a navigation requirement that we must comply with, unless obviously some type of unserviceability. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 19:32. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.