As others have pointed out, if the manual flying "workload" is too high for you then maybe you are in the wrong line of work!

Makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification. Agree with a lot of this. To be clear, I’m not turning everything off in the midst of the afternoon rush into JFK or while dodging storms in MEX. Wrong time and wrong place.

Ahh yeah it does - if you want to fly manually, you should have the discipline to make the appropriate commands / callouts as per the FCOM, otherwise engage the AP.

I'm not worried about manual flying workload, I'm fresh out of flight school where it was manual flying + manual IFR navigating + comms and all procedures including serious abnormal (simulated or not) in real IMC.
I'm just worried about rules with poor justifications. And I also don't like breaking rules. If there is no rule with poor justification there is no breaking this rule, so that would be ideal.
You wouldn't fail a line check but there could be one small remark yes.

Wow this thread has given me a headache. Thanks to Corona I've been out of the game for a few months now but by God I don't recall the job being this complicated!? :confused::bored:

The workload is easy for PF, what some don't realise though, is how much it increases PM's workload. Have you taken off from say Luton, into and across the London TMA during a very busy period and with CBs around?

I beleive our FCTM is identical to Airbus FCTM at least for that chapter.
Here's a screen shot of what mine says:
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....42ec9149b4.jpg

LOL! I absolutely agree with you, you summed it up perfectly!

Kay Pam
Why don't you give yourself time? If you start judging procedures as right or wrong.without much experience then you will build anti mind set There are personality types that hinder decision making and one of them is Anti Authority i.e. Don't Tell me. As they say SOPs are written in blood at least some of them. Clarifying your doubts is OK but every guy out of flying school brings new ideas then it will be chaotic. Just give yourself time it will work out by itself.

IMHO KayPam raised a good question.
In our business there should always be enough room for improvement.
Some operators do it that way, others do it different as learned in this thread.
At least I did.

KayPam,



How would your company fly an approach like this?



https://aeronav.faa.gov/d-tpp/2009/00443RIVER_VIS19.PDF

Raising a question in the way the topic starter did is, IMHO, still not sufficient grounds to get worried about their anti-authoritarian attitude. He's made it clear that he does and will follow the rules even if he doesn't like them. From that point, any discussion is welcome and should be encouraged as long as the suggestions remain as suggestions only until they are reviewed by the flight ops management and implemented into the SOP if found reasonable. It's good to see people put some thought into the reasoning behind what they do rather than follow orders blindly and with no clue as to why.

Questionable items in the SOP will always be a thing. One example which caused a lot of controversy amongst colleagues in an airline I used to work for was why the PF was not required to hand over the controls for the approach briefing. And, when the matter was voiced appropriately, the DFO gave a really good explanation which ended the dispute once and forever. The reason was that, in this way, the PF effectively remained head-up and monitoring the flight path while briefing the approach from the ND. And it was much better than the PM having the controls while being focused on his tablet to cross-check the arrival against the chart. Once people understood that, nobody said anything against it ever again. So, a little discussion may often be useful to resolve any questionable matters. Certainly better than people quietly doing their own thing while nobody is watching.

Why's it gimmicky to fly through the FD? If it's not doing what I want it to do, I ignore it. Push the red button by each thumb if it misbehaves further.

What copmpany in the ME has that dangerous SOP? I'd like to know, so I can avoid them. Is it the one that shall not be mentioned?

Quite a fascinating thread.

Caveats.

I have some experience in a number of sandpits but not the level of flying experience represented by many of our PPRuNe colleagues. As well, I came into the flying game when a more rigorous level of discipline was being established but not then to the extent that we see in recent years.

These days, the legal animal is ever present so any activity must, necessarily, be tempered by thoughts of discussions, challenges, and consequences in a different arena.

One significant factor is that the general starting age of airline folks probably is a little younger and with substantially less aviation experience than it was in years gone by ? By itself this is not a major problem but does require that the operating entity’s control over (new) pilot development is reasonably rigorous. We can see this in the military environment where the increasing level of imposed discipline over recent decades has resulted in a significant reduction in hull losses and fatalities – certainly within the Australian environment.

Many opine that traffic densities and airspace complexities are now such that rigour and procedural prescription are both inevitable and essential – I don’t profess to have the answers to that one although I posit that there have always been busy locations with which one had to contend ?

My thoughts, just for whatever they may be worth ..

I think the main philosophical catchcry need be something along the lines of “horses for courses”. I recall when I transitioned to the B733, the then boss was a wise chap (and one of those natural “born with the stick in his hand” types – was I envious ? of course I was) who, after a period of Type introduction, took the view that we were free to emphasise either the manual and/or the automatic, but need know and be competent with both, while taking care not to embarrass ourselves (or him, either, I guess).

While I have always inclined to the manual flying practice attitude, it didn’t take me long to realise (the -300 being my first somewhat automatic machine) that one could, quite easily, get out of one’s depth, particularly when significantly fatigued for whatever reason – horses for courses, again ?

Some of us would definitely emphasise the automatics, others would hand fly sectors, raw data, no auto throttle, essentially single pilot, the other guy watching with an appropriate level of interest, from takeoff to landing, to hone the hand tool skills. Did this greatly increase the workload on the monitoring pilot ? With an appropriate discussion at the start, it didn’t appear to do so. One thing did ensue, that being that we gained a high level of feel for what the aircraft would do while being reasonably conservative in one’s personal discipline.

Some for instances,

(a) check flight – severe blue day, 50 odd miles to run straight in. modest traffic. Checkie turned all the gadgets off (including aids) on my side so it was a real do-it-yourself visual approach from 20-odd thousand feet. Difficult ? Not really, certainly interesting (and totally unannounced), but one had to keep the brain thinking all the way in … (722 on that occasion).

(b) line flight, training captain asked did I have any idea of how steep a sensible approach could be conducted from the mid-twenties ? No ? Try dirty one in a mile. Worked out fine, gear, then flaps at 20. Again, had to keep the wits about me.

(c) DRW to CNS, severe blue day, howling westerly so CNS was going to be more than a tad rough in the lower levels. Over the upwind end at around 12000-13000 ft, steep descending circuit over the water and land into the north. Not a problem at all.

And so one could continue to recite relevant anecdotes from years gone by.

Would we have done these sorts of interesting things on a dirty night at the end of a long duty period ? Of course not – horses for courses.

Did we learn a bit about the capabilities of our steed ? Sure did.

What should be the approach ? Probably not for me to pontificate other than to observe – horses for courses.

You actually quoted my justification for my statement, did you read it? :)

Pilots should always "fly through" the flight directors - by which I mean you should always be looking at the pitch and roll presentation of the PFD, and any adjustment to the aircraft path should be by reference to this. Pilots must always refer to the pitch and bank presentation, and only regard the FD as a suggestion for guidance. Unusual attitudes? look only at pitch, bank, and speed, ignore all else. This should be instinctive.

The FD is an advisory instrument, and it should never be blindly followed. Doing so has caused accidents, and one must always look through it to confirm the actual pitch and bank of the aircraft, and that the FD is offering sensible guidance.

As far as taking the FD out if you are not going to follow it. I thought I had explained my reasoning fairly clearly.

On two occasions in my commercial flying I have rotated and got airborne and then had to avoid birds. In both cases the FDs were on, as per SOPs, and were guiding the usual path: bank to follow the SID, pitch to follow SRS (pitch to maintain V2). At a few hundred feet, birds appeared ahead, flying across our path, and I instinctively 'ducked' the aircraft underneath them to avoid damage to our pitot probes or ingesting the birds into an engine. There was no time to request "flight directors off", I just reacted as I needed to do, and ignored the flight director, since its indications were no longer appropriate at that precise moment. After passing under the birds, I gently resumed the FD guidance.

On another occasion during approach into Alicante, a banner towing aircraft - unknown and unseen by ATC radar - suddenly appeared off to our right flying across our path while PM was head down, dialling in tower frequency. Again, there was no time to follow SOPs, I simply avoided the aircraft and ignored the FD.

Regarding your so-called 'clutter' of the PFD, with a "plethora of information" and "waving needles" well, the A320, A321 and A330 that I fly (flew), have extremely well designed cockpit displays. Some say they are crude and old fashioned, but actually they have been very well thought out with only relevant information displayed, and they are very clear and easy to use. (I have not flown the A350). I have flown Boeing 737-300/400 though, and I found their displays awkward in terms of information layout and clutter.

Things must have changed, the wording in CAP24 “Guidance for Examiners” used to require the IRE/TRE to brief the candidates that “you may use the flight director, but if you do, you must ensure it is correctly programmed and you must follow its commands”

Bloody hell, this is hard work. :ugh: I don't know how to explain it any simpler.

Fine, fly your aircraft with blind adherance to the FD if it makes you happy and you really think that's what you should do.

I started my commercial flying on an aircraft with no auto-pilot, no auto-thrust, and no flight directors. I still fly by reference to the pitch and bank indications, the speed tape and the N1/EPR gauges. Everything else on top of that is nice to have, reduces my workload and I use it, but the FD is not my primary reference. I can, and do, ignore one or both axes of it in the short term if I need to in order to fly the plane safely.
.

The correctly programmed bit is the clue here

A last example from me. We are in the cruise and PM has gone to the loo. Or we are following vectors in a TMA and PM is getting cabin secure from the CC. Out of the blue ATC says "avoiding action, turn left 30°." I am going to take out the AP and turn immediately by reference to my bank and heading display, and ignore the roll bar of the FD but still follow the FD pitch bar. When I know the aircraft is safe, and/or PM comes back, we can turn the heading bug to realign the FD, and pop the AP back in.