T/O w/FSII
Well-Known Member
I can NOT believe what I am reading here. Wow. ATN has reached a whole new level. It's like his brain is on AP and the disconnect switch is broke.
Auto Pilot Usage
- Thread starter CLTflyer
- Start date
Nick
Well-Known Member
I haven't landed with those things on since 2008.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Does your company have any data that hand-flying RNAV SIDs was causing a lot of lateral deviations or something?
I've been doing safety work for the past several years where I am and I cannot recall a single instance of hand-flying an RNAV being a problem. We can fly them any way we want.
If someone wanted to change our procedure, I'd ask them to present some data as to why it should be done -- otherwise, it'd be pretty obvious that they made the whole thing up.
Not a single ASAP event involving RNAV and hand-flying.
ERfly
Well-Known Member
I don't know if they have or not, but it's in the manual that the autopilot comes on with a RNAV SID.
The Airbus was designed to fly on autopilot, sadly. I find it tends to do a much better job than a human, anyway. Besides, with fly-by-wire controls and auto-trim, isn't hand flying an Airbus just Control Wheel Steering?
Also, I think I've only done 1 or 2 approaches with the Autothrust off.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
That's okay, I think you're just as nuts.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Very interesting discussion, but one that I think is confusing a number of separate issues and incorrectly distilling them down into a false dilemma between hand flying and autopilot use.
From my viewpoint, there's no question that automation use has significantly increased safety and efficiency in the transport aviation industry. The statistics clearly support this, and it is a VERY GOOD THING.
That being said, the primary reason that pilots exist in that room in the front of the airplane is for when things go wrong, So, let's look at some of the factors involved in this:
- Often failures or emergencies, especially mechanical or avionics failures that autoflight systems aren't meant to handle, require pilots to hand fly the aircraft.
- Sometimes those failures are so catastrophic that the airmanship/judgment and hand-flying skills required to safely recover the ship are significantly outside the realm of "normal operations" for transport aviation.
- Both airmanship/judgment and the "monkey skills" (hand flying, stick-and-rudder, however you want to term it) are perishable skills; they are best when practiced frequently, and sharpest in the time following their most recent practice.
- Sharpness and precision in airmanship and monkey skills are relatively easily regained (so long as they were actually possessed at some time by the pilot in question) through currency and recency of practice.
- When a catastrophic emergency happens, it is critical that the pilots' skills be as sharp as they can at that very instant, as there isn't time to knock the rust off and regain those skills.
Pilots who want to cultivate their hand-flying skills believe they can/should do so via flying as much of their normal duty flying by hand. They (in my opinion correctly) believe that time spent in the seat using FMS/FGS/autopilot creates automation-induced atrophy of their hand-flying skills. They believe there is a balance between the safety afforded and the "company goals" of fuel efficiency afforded by operating with FMS/autoflight systems, and the need to maintain their own flying proficiency such that they are prepared in the event of something non-standard, up to and including a catastrophic emergency.
Other pilots see a different priority. They believe that malfunctions and emergencies are so rare, and that the skills "maintained" by hand flying portions of normal operational flights are of negligible relevance to handling those one-in-a-million catastrophic emergencies, that it does not warrant turning off the autopilot any more than absolutely necessary.
There's some correctness in both viewpoints. Yes, automation use does cause atrophy to hand flying skills AND airmanship, and practicing hand flying is the only way to keep those skills sharp. On the other hand, one can't deny the safety/efficiency that automation use has brought, and it is in all of our best interests to keep it safe and efficient.
My take is, while I think pilots should regularly turn off George and hand fly, the airmanship and monkey skills garnered simply flying operational transport-environment flights really isn't sufficient to cultivate the type of airmanship that big emergencies may need.
From my viewpoint, there's no question that automation use has significantly increased safety and efficiency in the transport aviation industry. The statistics clearly support this, and it is a VERY GOOD THING.
That being said, the primary reason that pilots exist in that room in the front of the airplane is for when things go wrong, So, let's look at some of the factors involved in this:
- Often failures or emergencies, especially mechanical or avionics failures that autoflight systems aren't meant to handle, require pilots to hand fly the aircraft.
- Sometimes those failures are so catastrophic that the airmanship/judgment and hand-flying skills required to safely recover the ship are significantly outside the realm of "normal operations" for transport aviation.
- Both airmanship/judgment and the "monkey skills" (hand flying, stick-and-rudder, however you want to term it) are perishable skills; they are best when practiced frequently, and sharpest in the time following their most recent practice.
- Sharpness and precision in airmanship and monkey skills are relatively easily regained (so long as they were actually possessed at some time by the pilot in question) through currency and recency of practice.
- When a catastrophic emergency happens, it is critical that the pilots' skills be as sharp as they can at that very instant, as there isn't time to knock the rust off and regain those skills.
Pilots who want to cultivate their hand-flying skills believe they can/should do so via flying as much of their normal duty flying by hand. They (in my opinion correctly) believe that time spent in the seat using FMS/FGS/autopilot creates automation-induced atrophy of their hand-flying skills. They believe there is a balance between the safety afforded and the "company goals" of fuel efficiency afforded by operating with FMS/autoflight systems, and the need to maintain their own flying proficiency such that they are prepared in the event of something non-standard, up to and including a catastrophic emergency.
Other pilots see a different priority. They believe that malfunctions and emergencies are so rare, and that the skills "maintained" by hand flying portions of normal operational flights are of negligible relevance to handling those one-in-a-million catastrophic emergencies, that it does not warrant turning off the autopilot any more than absolutely necessary.
There's some correctness in both viewpoints. Yes, automation use does cause atrophy to hand flying skills AND airmanship, and practicing hand flying is the only way to keep those skills sharp. On the other hand, one can't deny the safety/efficiency that automation use has brought, and it is in all of our best interests to keep it safe and efficient.
My take is, while I think pilots should regularly turn off George and hand fly, the airmanship and monkey skills garnered simply flying operational transport-environment flights really isn't sufficient to cultivate the type of airmanship that big emergencies may need.
Nick
Well-Known Member
Gee, that's proficiency.
It's literally 100% proficiency!
No skill involved in watching them oscillate from the climb detent to idle and having to override them.
At Safety Council this summer, a NASA PhD gave a presentation of a very thorough study they did.
When the A/P comes off, performance improves if the throttles also come off at that time.
I already knew that was the case in my airplane, but it was nice to hear it from such an expert.
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
I know I said I was done with this, but Hacker made a good post that wasn't ego-driven, so I'll wade back in. 
Actually, I would consider that a secondary reason. The primary reason is to do what a machine can't do: make decisions. The autopilot can't look ahead and see those build-ups that warrant deviation, for example. An autopilot can't hear a guy on the radio report a 30 knot loss on final and decide to wait out the departure a little while. Pilots make these kinds of decisions everyday, while something "goes wrong" incredibly rarely. And when something does "go wrong," the equipment on many modern aircraft takes care of itself in many ways. In the 717, half of what you're doing on a QRH after a system failure is just moving the switch position to match what the airplane has already done itself through automation. And that's a good thing. Prevents human error, which is far more common than computer error (which is usually caused by humans programming badly).
That's not really the main argument from my side. I don't dispute that practice is necessary to prevent atrophy of stick and rudder skills. What I dispute is that it takes so much practice that you need to do it all the time. Flying 8 legs this trip? Hand fly below 10k on one of those legs. I promise you, if you do that every trip, your skills aren't going to atrophy. You don't need to do it on every leg, wasting the airline's money, loading up the PM, and putting the passengers through a less comfortable ride.
Actually, I would consider that a secondary reason. The primary reason is to do what a machine can't do: make decisions. The autopilot can't look ahead and see those build-ups that warrant deviation, for example. An autopilot can't hear a guy on the radio report a 30 knot loss on final and decide to wait out the departure a little while. Pilots make these kinds of decisions everyday, while something "goes wrong" incredibly rarely. And when something does "go wrong," the equipment on many modern aircraft takes care of itself in many ways. In the 717, half of what you're doing on a QRH after a system failure is just moving the switch position to match what the airplane has already done itself through automation. And that's a good thing. Prevents human error, which is far more common than computer error (which is usually caused by humans programming badly).
That's not really the main argument from my side. I don't dispute that practice is necessary to prevent atrophy of stick and rudder skills. What I dispute is that it takes so much practice that you need to do it all the time. Flying 8 legs this trip? Hand fly below 10k on one of those legs. I promise you, if you do that every trip, your skills aren't going to atrophy. You don't need to do it on every leg, wasting the airline's money, loading up the PM, and putting the passengers through a less comfortable ride.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
@ATN_Pilot, you really think we hand fly because we have big egos, or just to impress ourselves?
In the last 12 months, I have 28 landings (an average of just over 2 landings a month). In 4 years on the 767, I have a grand total of 106 landings.
So, if I did what you're saying I should, turning on the automation at the first opportunity, then turning it off low to the ground, I'd have less than 1 hour of hand-flying experience per year. How on earth am I supposed to maintain proficiency with that? Is that even safe? If I found myself in an undesirable state in the middle of the night over the ocean (ref. AF447), would I be able to handle it with less than an hour of hand-flying experience per year?
Thankfully, the vast majority of professional pilots believe that maintaining proficiency in hand-flying (yes, practice) is necessary beyond the bare minimum level, and are encouraged to do so by our companies, the FAA, and the NTSB. They know, and we know, that proficiency is more important than saving every nickel (though, if you're hand-flying the profile, the difference is negligible even in a heavy jet). It's also more important than passenger comfort, though I still shake my head that you really think a smooth, low-gain, proficient pilot doing some hand-flying provides an uncomfortable ride (hint: it only does if the guy flying isn't very good).
In the last 12 months, I have 28 landings (an average of just over 2 landings a month). In 4 years on the 767, I have a grand total of 106 landings.
So, if I did what you're saying I should, turning on the automation at the first opportunity, then turning it off low to the ground, I'd have less than 1 hour of hand-flying experience per year. How on earth am I supposed to maintain proficiency with that? Is that even safe? If I found myself in an undesirable state in the middle of the night over the ocean (ref. AF447), would I be able to handle it with less than an hour of hand-flying experience per year?
Thankfully, the vast majority of professional pilots believe that maintaining proficiency in hand-flying (yes, practice) is necessary beyond the bare minimum level, and are encouraged to do so by our companies, the FAA, and the NTSB. They know, and we know, that proficiency is more important than saving every nickel (though, if you're hand-flying the profile, the difference is negligible even in a heavy jet). It's also more important than passenger comfort, though I still shake my head that you really think a smooth, low-gain, proficient pilot doing some hand-flying provides an uncomfortable ride (hint: it only does if the guy flying isn't very good).
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
Yes. And no, I don't expect you to admit it (or possibly even realize it on a conscious level).
Joshwa
Well-Known Member
On the 737 this is Boeing standard philosophy - manual flight = manual thrust. I understand the 777/787 is different though.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Well, I'm sure glad you're so enlightened.
Care to address the rest of my post as it relates to your outlook?
SlumTodd_Millionaire
Most Hated Member
No. It's just a rehash of what we've already been over. As I said, I've made my view clear, so have you, and we're never going to agree. No need to keep arguing it over and over again.
Kingairer
'Tiger Team' Member
Not picking a side, but your type of flying is more of an exception.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
How's that?
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
Not really... most widebody guys have the same situation. That's why the widebody fleets have the highest amount of minutes handflown per flight at my airline.
Nick
Well-Known Member
This is also the reason that the larger the aircraft, the greater the percentage of passengers and cabin crew that are vomiting uncontrollably all over themselves and all over each other, due to the G-forces they're experiencing as the ham-fisted ego-maniac up front attempts to simultaneously guide the aluminum beast to cruise altitude and track course without the use of autopilot.
PeanuckleCRJ
Poodle Wrangler
You got that right. The airbus has a G meter that pops up when you have excursions outside a normal range. Everytime someone turns off the autopilot, the violent oscillations that occur pop it up and it shows somewhere between 0 and 2 Gs constantly. Incredibly unprofessional and unsafe. I can't believe the company, FAA, and NTSB would recommend us partaking in such silliness!