Bunch of serious handling/SOP issues....but the auto brake did not actuate because of those issues?

No, HDG/ALT/VS even ROLL/PITCH are all more appropriate than causing a possible worse situation from developing by taking the automation out. There is of course a time where there is no other option but it shouldn't be the first solution. If you can't manage the modes you shouldn't be flying the jet.

I'm with Arnold E

Going into CWS or VS can also be very confusing for the PM rather than just disengaging and hand flying.

Maybe we need to specify a phase of flight i.e. Cruise/Approach/Unusual attitude.

Im also a Boeing guy - maybe the opposite for the Bus - never flown one.

Yeah that's fair enough. I don't believe there's a right or wrong answer, every situation is different. I've seen automation used when hand flying is the better option.

Does your MEL permit dispatch with autopilot inoperative? if it does then you had better hope that at least one of the two pilots knows how to hand-fly on instruments..

"Jeez Jack - its CAVOK and I've got a sim check coming up -I need the practice."

Statistically, there is more likely to be a significant event occur with a reduced level of automation selected by the crew (unless overtaken by another significant event)

The Jeez Jack comment highlights the absurdity of modern airline flying thinking. "lets enhance the opportunity for a screw up because I want to use the real aeroplane to practice for a sim session".

Crazy.

How right you are Zapatas, in my era, flying the aircraft was part of your training, your work, your learning, and your pleasure. I could always marvel that I got paid for doing something I loved so much. Now you are not allowed to touch the bloody thing, but still expected to get it out of trouble, when all the bells and whistles fail. Go figure. It is very interesting to read the QF Skippers account of his feelings after it all happened. My biggest could be disaster was the DC9 incident out of CBR which is documented. My F/O and myself, and a paxing Flighty got seriously pissed afterwards, along with a shaken cabin crew, and I guess that was our way of dealing with it, and I note the QF crew did exactly the same. Then you have to be prepared for the fallout afterwards. At first elation, then relief, then self doubt, followed by the fact that you had just faced your own mortality, and you look at your family and be grateful. I did not need professional help, and was given a fortnight off, but was glad to return to flying, with a new respect for the DC9 and its capacity to get itself out of trouble, with full fuel, full pax, and one donk that pulled like a Trojan, and as most of you know the terrain around CBR it bloody well needed to. I still think about it at times, it kept me awake for some time, considering it was not simply a engine failure due to tyre ingestion, but I was carrying the Treasurer (Keating) and most of the front bench of the Govt that night, had I pranged it would have changed this countries history, and I would have left my wife and my family to have that on their shoulders for ever more.

I have always preferred the easiest, safest and most efficient option. And sometimes this requires the confident disconnection of the automatics, put the aircraft where it needs to be more quickly than the automatics allow, then re-insate the automatics.

A good Airbus example being a glide slope intercept from above, in a higher than normal energy state due whatever reason ( ATC or environmental ). It was previously simple to do it without the automatics and it is more limiting doing it with them. Fine, the new generation want a solution using the automatics. It has opened up a can of worms, with the automatic solution creating task saturation and the aircraft ending up in an undesired state on occasion. And the added risk that this task saturation with automatics, sees a tendency for raw data to be ignored, and the aircraft sails through the glideslope...

Unbelievable! The best solution is a pilot who is fully aware of the Flight Director limitations, a pilot who is confident in hand flying the aircraft, a pilot who never trusts the automation and monitors raw data. This delivers a pilot who will make the best choice under the circumstances. More often than not, he will use the automatics, but when airmanship dictates, a manual set up may be more desirable.

I am now realizing how lucky I was to be trained during the evolution of the glass cockpit jets. We were trained in the basics and built up the levels of supporting automation. The foundation of this training was always scanning and backing up with raw data. Yes, this is supposed to happen with the newer generation, but often they are task saturated with the automatics and cumbersome SOP's, that seem to complicate and blur scenarios where airmanship would deliver a common sense outcome.

Is this our problem? Pilots now live in fear of flying without the automatics or their SOP's limit their ability to do so. During uncommon events like a intermediate go around and a restrictive altitude, they encounter a startle factor as the SOP's haven't provided a solution and the limitations of the automatics are not understood or are unexplored. In this scenario, there is a chance the crew will just land long due a lack of confidence in doing a non-standard GA, or a 90% chance the GA maneuver is disorderly, due an inability to confidently manage the aircraft where the automatics may not deliver the best solution.

Gburg

I agree with everything you said. My post was in response to a statement regarding "just disconnect when it's not working etc"

This subject has gone around and around and will continue to do so. While I appreciate those that actually post their views on Pprune are in a tiny minority v those who browse Pprune, nevertheless, the above quote is probably closer to the truth for the silent majority of Pprune readers.

We are now so entrenched in such high levels of automation that it's too late to turn back time & actually fly a plane using skills long since lost.
The A/C of today are simply not designed to be manipulated manually other than in a basic fashion by a human purely in the interest of safety, that word that is used to protect & serve to avoid the crazy litigious world we now live in!

We still have A/C made of the same stuff,primarily aluminum etc: the speeds of yesterdays machines & today's haven't changed BUT the guy behind the steering wheel is changing or evolving & not for the best either in my opinion.

ALL the A/C manufacturers are now fully geared up to produce even more automation & this is the selling point of modern hardware in the future,not the need for or installation of experienced pilots from days gone by, they/us/we oldies are a dieing breed & will soon be 'bred' out of the cockpit altogether.

Soon in the not too distant future there won't be a single pilot around flying who has raw flying experience, system operators only will prevail up front in rows 1A&B to protect & serve!.

Some old retired pilots would have sat upon their verandah's watching aviation change many years ago right before their eyes to what we have today, but that same scene is being played out again.

IF that is the case, then I see no need for the pilot at all, and so total auto pilotless aircraft are the future,.........but not for me.

That may be true of Brand A Wally but not so of Brand B. The 777 is a delightful aeroplane to hand fly, with or without A/T.

I have flown the 787 level D sim and it is likewise delightful.

This is not about whether they can be hand flown its about whether you're allowed to and to want extent you SHOULD.

Bloggs suggested we could get all the hand flying practice we need in wide bodies flying between HKG-LHR etc etc below 10000' on nice sunny days - clearly he has never flown out of HKG or into LHR.:E

Certainly where I am based its the easiest thing in the world to hand fly below 10000' on arrival or departure and some of us do. Its not appropriate at places like HKG,LHR,DXB etc...its just too bloody busy...and after you have stared out at the DXB/LHR/FRA sky through 'two piss holes in the snow' a few times on arrival you soon realise that the trainers were telling the truth during the initial line training when they said you wouldn't necessarily be in any fit condition to hand fly after the 8,10 or 12 hours spent getting there.

I am not even convinced that lack of raw hand flying skills is the greatest challenge our profession faces.

I hand fly the maggot regularly , and really enjoy it.

Of course they are designed to be flown manually. Not a lot has changed in layout since Orville took off. What has changed is the mentality that aircraft are too dangerous to fly manually. SOPs and outsourcing of training has made sure of that.

A few people here still don't get it. Of course you can hand fly but with most companies SOP's it loads up the non-flying pilot to the detriment of his primary role of monitoring and cross-checking. MCP selection to support a PF manually flying can get very busy at times. The aircraft are designed for auto-pilot use to allow greater situational awarness, allowance for fatique etc. Not to mention giving the support pilot a free hand to cross check everything.

By all means keep hand-flying skills up, but only when the weather is good, traffic is light and brain is not fatigued.

The thought of some goose hand-flying the Lamborne hold and arrival into EGLL during peak hour traffic is mind-boggling.

Primary role of monitoring and cross-checking? I thought one of the main problems with long haul flying was the mind-numbing boredom of automation with its monitoring and cross-checking. Surely anyone with a set of eyes and a brain can monitor a few instruments. You can't have it both ways, you know,:ok: Reminds me of the time I was flying a 737 in perfect conditions somewhere over Europe and decided to hand fly at high altitide and follow the VOR tracks on the flight plan.

I told the 300 hour cadet first officer of my intentions to switch off the FD, AP and AT and fly by hand. He sat bolt upright and was all panicked attention and then I nearly wet myself with laughter when he said he had better don his shoulder harness if I was going to hand fly. Clearly he was seriously frightened!

What a great thread, keep it up guys!

As someone who has only experienced the magic boxes in the last six months, I must admit that if I have a 'what's it doing now moment' I revert straight to raw data, because that's what I know. Gee it must be nice though to have a second pair of hands to sort the automatics, while you're wrestling with the Airplane*.;)

* Spelling deliberate, after all it is from Wichita...:}

HH, Flying machines from Wichita are not "airplanes", they're bugsmashers. :}

Capn Bloggs, aren't they all? It's just the speed and number of bugs that varies!;)

One of the reasons I believe in raw data type proficiency, is that this "loading up" you refer to is a skill in itself. I suppose it's called "support".

If a support pilot struggles and his capacity is sapped in this role, how will he perform if I have a multiple failure where automation is degraded?

I am expected, as an airline pilot, to perform and put the aircraft safely on the ground when faced with all the multi-failure scenarios. Raw data proficiency in suitable conditions, keeps me honed not only in elemental flying skills, but also in other areas of flight deck performance. For example, it is a skill in itself to not load up your support pilot and to run checklists at suitable times and to manage the workload appropriately.

If I have double hydraulics failure or fly in emergency configuration for example, I need the high levels of capacity to hand fly the aeroplane and manage what could be a MPL/300 hour cadet who's hands will be trying to go everywhere. The outfit I fly with has had two self induced double hydraulic failures due poor flight deck coordination.

A raw data approach every month is enough for me to maintain some of these important skills!

I like this story from early days. New F/O comes whistling around the corner in an A320 at Epping. Weather fluctuating about the minima. Autopilot off, flight directors off, autothrust off.....raw data approach.

Old Captain leans over and re-instates the automatics and the aircraft flys a coupled approach and lands from the minima. On the ground Capt asks the F/O WTF were you doing? F/O explains that in the RAAF they were told to do their raw data flying when they were tired and the weather the worst, to heighten the training value!

I would expect we all realize the inappropriateness of the above; that's what the simulators are for. Hand flying on the line should be a normal currency. Sadly, the big deal that's been made of it, has the new generation terrified of hand flying and they are some of the quickest draws in getting that autopilot in straight after T/O.

Is this thread for real!? :sad::sad::sad:

A few discerning readers seem to think so, Amos:ok:

I'm not really interested in discerning readers. I'm more interested in the guys in the LHS who are supposed to be running the show! :(:(:(

I don't understand why PM's get overloaded when the automatics are off. You have one system less that you have to monitor :)

If you feel that you need to monitor the flight parameters more than you need to with automatics engaged, then you have too much confidence in the automatics.

@teresa green
A simple question; how do you imagine the pax feel during an incident like this? I and my family experienced an in flight situation on an ME based airline which was most certainly not normal, and this was not helped by the lack of information / reassurance from the pointy end.

http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...6-doh-kul.html

To this day I can imagine the PNF sleeping in his left seat, whilst the PF (an individual from the sub-continent) tried to work up the courage to decide whether to:

1.Wake up the PNF and ask him what he should do.

2.Try to figure out which buttons he should press to correct the situation.

Apparently he did neither, because we rocked and rolled all over the sky intermitently until we reached KUL.

Not a very pleasant or confidence buliding experience I can assure you.

Automation is fine, but it should not be regarded as a substitute for human skill and intuition, which no machine or computer can ever adequately replicate.

And maybe airlines pilots* could stop making a fool of new recruits, coming from Air Forces where they flew fighters, trainers, liaison aircraft, did in flight-refuelling, air combat, close formation take-off and landings, air displays, short-field landings with NVG, low level tactical navigations, para droppings, carrier landings (and even ILS auto)
From my own memory and colleagues experience, airline pilots are always very good in explaining to you how it was to fly fighters, when they don't have the slightest clue about the job... which doesn't prevent them to consider you are not fit for the job of flying crates from A to B on autopilot... (I'm now a wide-body Captain, for info - and I have done years ago barrel rolls with transport aircraft, yes not difficult it's exactly like a barrel roll in fighters with a wingman in close formation .... so much for handling skills)
So the solution is : recruit more ex-fighter pilots, who got through a real selection, and didn't pay for their job.
I fortunately have a lot of very proficient colleagues in the airlines, of all origins.

(*) by airline pilots, I mean those systems monitoring officers and button-pushers who are the subject of this topic.

@virginexcess:
That's demonstrably false, since training is already changing, as reported by some pilots here.

A brilliant discussion. So many opinions. Just what pprune should be about.
Yes Amos this is for real. Very real.

What hasn't been mentioned here much is the lawyers rather than the accountants. As I see it as PIC, is that every time you remove automatics without reason, on a revenue flight, just to 'practice' your skills, you leave yourself wide open to criticism/blame.

If something does go wrong, even just an FDM event, you have to be able to justify removing a layer of safety. How do you answer, when the insurance lawyer asks you why you went against the manufacturer, and airlines advice to use the automation as much as possible? It seems to be in all FCOMS and OMs I have seen.

Fatigue/tiredness is the biggest problem today in airlines. They know it, hence the instruction to maximise automation. It's not ideal, but it's what we have to live with.

The simulator should be used to practice for line flying, not the other way around!

The most absurd posting in this thread. Just what the airlines need, Major Bob Hollands at the controls....

I've found a number of ex-fighter pilots to be average to sometimes dangerous as airline pilots. Especially if they are from non-Western air forces.

That said, some are very gifted and stand-outs.

I believe that most of us, if not all, will agree that the airplane must be flown first. It's an age old saying being passed on by flight instructors for decades: Aviate, Navigate then Communicate. The power of simplicity...if only it could be easily perceived.

Fighter pilots do have a tendency to 'drive' planes more than flying them which is why some find their flying style with airliners a little reckless. There's a stark weight and maneuverability difference between a fighter and an airliner! But I think the boys from the transporter/heavy-lift category might be good with civilian jets.

There are pilots to let the AP handle things after 400 feet and there are some who take it by hand up to the first level portion of the DP or until they're in a stable climb. Usually, the latter are the better pilots qualitatively.

I know it's hard to admit but automation has made revenue flying much, much safer

I hate to think what would happen if , by some wave of the magic wand, we were taken back 30 years................

just look at the stats

Of course we now suffer different accidents but (especially given the massive rise in route kms) we suffer fewer accidents

if you still want to hand fly go out and buy a share in a light plane

Harry, that's silly. Nobody's suggesting we go back 30 years. And GPWS has probably had the most impact on reducing accident rates, combined with database approaches. However your suggestion that we do not address one of the last remaining and now major cause of accidents, LOC (because of incompetent hand-flying), is sticking your head in the sand.

Reading this thread I am really glad I managed to get hired by the company I'm with right now.

I'm as rookie as rookies can get, sporting about 150 hours on the 320 just now.

AP off / ATHR off / FD off is SOP and the FD will only come on if the Wx is really bad or you are feeling unfit.

And too be honest I'm still feeling a bit paranoid about losing skill because I'm not flying full procedures / manual holdings like back at school. I can't imagine how insecure I'd feel if I'd have to d/c the AP in short final every approach...

How hard is the redesign to tactically couple the side sticks? That *has* to be done. The entire DC-10 fleet was grounded after AA191. In my opinion the decoupled controls are a fundamental design flaw as dangerous as bunched hydraulic systems, and more likely to make itself felt in an emergency when both pilots are pumped and fighting for their very human lives.

TM quote

It's impossible to be rid of this behavior. People who use computers in all contexts will simply sit and stare or fumble about when trouble comes, even experts, even the very people who are in charge of operating them. I have seen programmers stare at the screen for minutes pondering the unexpected behavior of their own work. The man/computer interface involving button pushing and knob twiddling is not suitable for a high demand activity such as handling an emergency.

IMO the entire thing should be reduced to a few instantly accessible modes 1) leave me alone I'm flying this airplane 2) help me out a little here 3) I'll help you out here 4) you fly, I'm taking a rest 5) TOGA 6) autoland. Thrust, trim, and controls should all replicate the time-honored and physically debugged act of manual flying at all times.

This does not mean the computer cannot be active in a smoothing sense even when 1) is selected. No efficiency would be lost. The beanies would be mollified. The computer could also act in an advisory capacity, suggesting optimal performance configuration in manual mode. But the real issue is the interface.

Well I hope your employer knows that you are using line flying for your private training method?

I think DeSitter is right - seperately coupled sidesticks should be a no-no -

how many commanders will let their FO hand fly from T/O to at least 10,000ft , and from 10,000ft to Landing? (raw data, without the FDs, Without APs, And Manual Thrust? )

and how many of you guys actually notices the thrust setting during cruise for a particular speed and weight? most guys just make sure the speed doesn't go too fast or too slow. If something like AF447 were to happen again, and the pilots instantly takes over control and maintain S&L, does he know what trust setting to set for that particular weight? (oh yeah, i know WHAT to do, but HOW to do it?

many of the commanders are in their comfort zone, and are not willing to let the other guy screw up their DAY by having to G/A because of unstabilized approaches, or some other screw ups.

one days, these FO will be a commander, and they TOO won't let their FO hand fly because they themselves lacked the confidence.

the training department of Aircraft Manufacturers and Airlines worldwide should take action and change this.

It started with Airbus, now Boeing is going into that direction too.

My airline rosters 2 manual handling sims per year as well as the bi-annual PPC's etc.......

Does yours?