Redhill planning appeal
 

Please write to support Redhill's taxiway, which helps them operate in the winter (main runway is grass)
https://planning.reigate-banstead.go...=QDK3Z3MV0PV00

Noel, re 'children of the magenta … '
The most important item which the training presentation does not tell you, is when to turn the automatics off (and how you know - and why).
Pilots must understand which are the most important flight parameters and the action 'trigger' values, and have sufficient mental capacity (low workload) to make those judgements.
This is not learnt by watching videos.

-

Not to renew the AoA debate, but if an aircraft has EFIS airspeed displayed with low speed awareness symbology overlaid, then this is a 'display' of AoA. Also it is referenced to action values, stall warning and stall.
We do not need more displays to 'help' pilots in unique situations, situations which first should be identified and avoided.
More displays add mental clutter, demand attention, and increase workload. Pilots need to understand which of the existing instruments are the important parameters and values for the situation. The task is first to understand the situation, second choosing an appropriate action, both aspects demanding significant mental workload.

Don't clutter the mental process with more checks and calls, they are distracting, interrupt the primary task, and tend towards multi tasking - which we cannot do.

TM, FPA off :ok:

Raw data FPA off! Cheating with track line on ND allowed, since you cannot deactivate the green diamond on PFD anyway. :}

Additional coarse view in agreement is that no matter the tool, someone will abuse or misuse it heavily one day. Even more so as getting the tool right is a hard task in the first place:

https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=19920120-0
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20160319-0

pretty much exactly the reply when I asked the same question to some of a major aircraft manufacturer’s safety / Test pilot team a few years ago in context if AF447

I completely agree that Raw Data means just that and there is nothing more enjoyable than a visual dep/arrival on B744.
However, on aircraft without an AOA indicator, and to recover an upset/stall, the FPA is a huge help, and about the only use for the feature.

Not really. The opposite I would say. A friend of mine who is TRE, told me one pilot in the sim failed to recover a stall as he confused the pitch indicator with the bird. Plus it’s a bit laggy; That’s why the use of the bird is not recommended for dynamic manoeuvers such as go around and probably why in case of go around with the bird previously selected it will be automatically removed.

On my current type the bird is always on by design, and cannot be disengaged threw crew action. Once witnessed an event where the PF mixed up the FPA symbol with the pitch symbol eventually trying to pull +12 FPV instead of pitch during an OEI T/O on the simulator...

RNAV without FD? BIG UUFFFF... FCOM - PRO-SPO-51 P 10/14 maybe that's why you've never encountered the case. UNABLE RNAV are your words to go.

One reason why raw data manual flying might be frowned upon by the higher levels is precisely if people cannot decide when it is appropriate and when it isn't. RNAV procedure? ILS with a low cloud base and/or poor visibility? Independent parallel approaches? Use the appropriate level of automation - and that is the highest one, just as it was originally intended. Raw data VOR/DME procedure? ILS in reasonable weather? Visual approach or visual departure? It's your party, disconnect whatever you want and fly the plane. Performing an RNAV GNSS approach with no FDs or in TRACK-FPA is just as wrong as performing a visual approach in NAV. The FCTM is very explicit on the correct techniques for every type of approach, with some further useful comments provided as explanations to the steps listed in the FCOM Normal Procedures - Approach guidance management chapter. Plus any company requirements in the OM-B (for example, there's a certain major European carrier which permits flying a raw data approach or an approach with manual thrust, but not both at the same time).

Point 1, In which case they have the wrong calibre of pilots flying their jets!

Point 2. Wow, unbelievable, and is that why, following an engine failure ( unlocked cowls) the captain had to get the FO to handle manual thrust for speed control ?

In my younger days, 50 years ago, in a Canberra we flew, single pilot, often to limits.
Raw data approaches without FD, we didnt have one !
We flew it in manual, AP not fitted !
Manual thrust, sometimes on one engine, no AT installed.

We more than coped, it was just the norm, we were well trained, ( and we could recover jets, large and small, from a stall without any “birds“ or A of A instrumentation,) and just got on with it, no problem.
.
I still dont understand the logic of one airline which does not allow use of manual thrust in normal ops. BUT allows dispatch with AT inop.!

Back, in my despair to much of what I read in this thread, to my morning coffee !

Retired BA/BY

Most of present lot wil not be able to handle OEI Canberra. Not so much because they are not capable but because nobody is trained to that level of handling and because it's not required. Why! put a purely Airbuss guy in a 737 for EFATO he will take some time. Modern aircraft are not that nasty. From those olden days traffic has increased multifold and without automation that wasn't possible. So training must be done within the constraints to only required proficiency. It's like driving to office and back sure there may be rain, mist, dust, traffic but one doesn't need formula one driving skills. Because no matter how well you fly you will not be permitted a CAT3 landing or to stay in RVSM. Aircraft are built with more and more automation to be flown using them, use of appropriate automation also needs to be learnt There are incidents because pilots didn't know what the aircraft was doing. Manual flying is done to have the skills to fly without them should they fail which most Pilots will not experience. Good Manual flying skill doesn't protect from insufficient automation knowledge.

I fully agree. But watching those videos shows you what sort of things you need to 'get out there' and learn.


RetiredBA/BY, for the second time on this Thread I agree with everything that you have said. There is one big difference between you and these new 'zero to hero wizz-kids': you were trained properly.

But you don't have to go as far back as to Canberra days to get back to that total hand-flying for real. The airline that I was in only 25 year ago (and not a small 'here-today-gone-tomorrow' airline, it was the third biggest scheduled carrier in the UK -- there's a clue to the name!) had an entire fleet that had no autopilots. The pilots on that fleet would daily 'do battle with the elements', with whatever the east coast haar or fret would throw at them, safely and successfully using only their skills and ability. I doubt that many of the modern 'button pushers' would have coped on a fleet like that.

An interesting comment about hand-flying: Vanderburgh, in that excellent lecture of his, considers hand-flying to be without autopilot and without auto-throttle where you are controlling the flight path and the energy of the aeroplane; with the auto-throttle still engaged he considered it to be just 'guiding the aeroplane'. I agree. Recently I 'hand flew' an approach from quite far out but with the auto-throttle still engaged. It was easy and I actually passed the comment to my colleague in t'other seat that by I was "cheating"!!

(Off the Thread for a mo and onto the Canberra topic: Did anyone notice what the high-altitude monitoring aeroplane was for the Spacex Dragon's return to earth? The Administrator of NASA said that he was the first Administrator not to have been alive when Americans were on the moon... Well,he wasn't alive when that aeroplane was built!!!)

You don't even have to go back 25 years. I started 8-9 years ago on a 19-seat turboprop with an operator that had a fleet of about 12 of them. Only two had autopilots, only one AP was any good. Regular CAT I ILS approaches with weather at minima and flying in conditions from +35C to -40C. And these jobs are still around.

But the job market did not encourage taking such a career path, as the plane was <10.000kg MTOW and less than 20 seats. I had roughly 2000hrs on the thing and couldn't get an interview to save my life no matter how many letters I sent out. Eventually was in the right place at the right time to roll into a jet job. I will still quite happily fly manual and even raw data with weather at CAT I minima. Properly briefed and if you are not on minimum fuel, it is a non-event.

Like the thread starter, I'm also still a bit confused by policies where the PM has to set speed/heading/altitude targets when PF is in manual flight. In my experience and opinion, it is more efficient for the PF to set and call them out and for the PM to monitor and call out any mistakes or issues. But on the other hand, it hasn't caused any huge issues yet, so I just roll with it. And if it seems that the PM is a bit swamped, which can still happen, especially with new guys... I'll just apply some common sense and set the damn things myself :rolleyes:.

I have a foot in both camps, having started my commercial flying career in a Shed, with no automatics at all, and finished on the Airbus FBW family, with the BAe146 and Boeing 737 on the way. So just by way of balance, that magenta guy strikes me as one who doesn't really trust 'new fangled' automatics. You simply cannot fly some of the things we fly today without automatics and the Nav systems we have now, so we need to know how to use them quickly and correctly. There are very good reasons for having the destination runway in the FMC of an Airbus FBW and it is a doddle to change it over.

There used to be three crew on the flight deck - two pilots and one engineer. Now there are only two, so more has to be monitored by fewer pairs of eyes and there are only two people to :
fly
navigate
trouble shoot
read checklists.
listen to ATC clearances
check correct selections being made by PF
fuel check
fuel transfer
engine check
prevent engine exceedances
ditto flap and gear speeds,
Cabin calls
Airframe de- or anti-ice.
Perform emergency drills and checklists.
T/O and landing performance
Fuelling
System 'admin' e.g. pressurisation and air-conditioning

Automatics help greatly with this increased workload.

Not all automatics are very well integrated and some have to be watched carefully, - hence no auto-thrust without auto-pilot on some, but Airbus FBW automatics and auto-thrust are excellent. This of course, while helping enormously with the workload, can bring problems of rusting hand flying skills: When tired or not wanting to screw up and cause a go-around after a long transatlantic crossing or whatever, it is very easy to rely on some or all of the automatics.

Chief pilots need to implement systems where hand flying is very strongly encouraged - preferred even - under certain conditions, so as to keep their pilot's skills sharp and flying ability up to speed, without jeopardising the commercial program.

This is or at least could be airplane dependent.
During my IR training, the aircraft had a garmin that indicated a lateral deviation and a precise time to perform the turns. Flying RNAV raw data was completely feasible and reasonable.
On the airbus without any precise indication of lateral deviation, yes, impossible, I agree...

If the manufacturer gives less information, then manual flying will be harder.
Try to fly a DME arc with an old DME that gives DME speed : if you know how to use it, you can make a DME arc that's precise to +/- 0.1nm, regardless of wind conditions and other difficulties.
If you try to do the same with a newer equipment (G1000 for example) which does not give DME speed, you lose a valuable information and precision will drop, and mental workload will have to increase in order to compensate.
Now try to perform a DME arc without a DME indicator. It would be forbidden, for the same reason why RNAV without FD is forbidden on the airbus...

While acknowledging the importance of understanding how to use automation, I laugh at the suggestion that there’s some regular practice required to get the AP to do what you want. We’ve all made FCU/MCP errors at some point.

How often have you thought, “I need to practice using the AP some more; I’m getting rusty” vs “I need to do some more raw data hand flying; I’m getting rusty”?

I bet with your turboprop experience, you could fly circles around the guys who were turning you down from jet jobs.

To your last paragraph, I think the difficulty with the OP’s company is that they force the PF to tell the PM to set the FCU. That does increase workload.

Fully agree with your last statement though. At the end of the day, good sense must prevail. If the PM is busy, set the FCU yourself if necessary.

On some of our Airbii, on a managed approach, we get a lateral deviation indicator in the style of a localiser scale. (We don’t have FLS)

I haven’t tried it, but I assume in a pickle, I could use it to get in if the FD failed.

Really unfortunate that only the smaller planes (regional jets) have CDIs. I used to enjoy flying RNAV sids and stars on “raw data”.