Autopilot Disconnection

Hell we flew the ATR the other night down the slope right behind a 717. No dot high then. I haven't seen the dot high technique used on any of my observation flights nor have any instructors mentioned it in training. They have mentioned to not dive at the end of the runway after you get the runway in sight because wake turbulence will eat you up.
 
mikecweb said:
Hey Mini,
Do me a favor. Continue doing what your doing. Last thing we need is another of us getting killed because they read on an internet forum that it isn't right to fly a dot high on the glide slope following another aircraft. What PCL doesn't realize is your flying planes weighing <10,000lbs with not a whole lot of thrust to get you out of bad situations. We've lost a Baron before to wake turbulence and I don't want to lose one of my fellow pilots because of an internet "rant".
One of my SICs, I forget if it was Ackeight or LJG, saw first hand what wake turbulence can do to a baron.
Click to expand...

Mikecweb -

Out of curiousity, is the excerpt below that Baron? I ask because I have had a file photo of a 757 from this article on the wall in my room for a decade.


There are two other recent mishaps involving light aircraft. A Beech Baron 58 inbound for Port Columbus International in Columbus, Ohio, on a Part 135 cargo flight was cleared to land behind a 757 on a night visual approach. The approach controller advised the pilot twice about wake from the Boeing and issued a speed restriction not to exceed 170 knots. The Baron was estimated to be 3.5 to 4 miles behind the Boeing, and the wind was calm. The tower issued landing clearance and also issued a wake warning. A witness said, "As the first airplane landed, the second one was still high. It seemed to more or less maintain this altitude until shortly before the runway, when it descended down to the runway to land...the airplane rolled 90 degrees perpendicular to the runway...." The Baron impacted 152 feet beyond the approach end of the overrun and slid another 1,000 feet down the runway. It was the pilot's very first flight under Part 135; he had 1,250 hours total time and 30 hours in twins, but only three as PIC in a twin. How much better the outcome would have been if the pilot had aimed for the end of the touchdown zone rather than for the numbers.


http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9810.html
 
Nick said:
Mikecweb -

Out of curiousity, is the excerpt below that Baron? I ask because I have had a file photo of a 757 from this article on the wall in my room for a decade.


There are two other recent mishaps involving light aircraft. A Beech Baron 58 inbound for Port Columbus International in Columbus, Ohio, on a Part 135 cargo flight was cleared to land behind a 757 on a night visual approach. The approach controller advised the pilot twice about wake from the Boeing and issued a speed restriction not to exceed 170 knots. The Baron was estimated to be 3.5 to 4 miles behind the Boeing, and the wind was calm. The tower issued landing clearance and also issued a wake warning. A witness said, "As the first airplane landed, the second one was still high. It seemed to more or less maintain this altitude until shortly before the runway, when it descended down to the runway to land...the airplane rolled 90 degrees perpendicular to the runway...." The Baron impacted 152 feet beyond the approach end of the overrun and slid another 1,000 feet down the runway. It was the pilot's very first flight under Part 135; he had 1,250 hours total time and 30 hours in twins, but only three as PIC in a twin. How much better the outcome would have been if the pilot had aimed for the end of the touchdown zone rather than for the numbers.


http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9810.html
Click to expand...

Looks like that Baron crash was a direct result of what our instructors were talking about, diving at the end of the runway.
 
777forever said:
Looks like that Baron crash was a direct result of what our instructors were talking about, diving at the end of the runway.
Click to expand...

PCL_128 said:
Exactly. Always stay on GS. Descending below GS towards the end of the approach is a very bad technique.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right - they speculate this pilot was attempting to land short to make the first turn off in order to be on time.

Airnet has done a fantastic job incorporating this accident (along with others) into their training to educate their pilots.

However, they do indeed teach "a dot above" behind something big. Face it, we're small, they're big. We don't eat up a lot of runway, and you can easily hit the touchdown zone being a dot above anyway.
 
Ian J said:
However, they do indeed teach "a dot above" behind something big. Face it, we're small, they're big. We don't eat up a lot of runway, and you can easily hit the touchdown zone being a dot above anyway.
Click to expand...

I would agree with that policy at Airnet. Flying Barons and Lears is different than flying CRJs and 737s.
 
I was following the course of this thread from my PDA, so I didn't have an opportunity to respond to it like I would have hoped. It really was a good discussion.

At our company, we have what is called, "Levels of Automation." There are four of them, starting with hand-flown raw data, moving up to autopilot coupled LNAV. In between is hand-flying using the flight director, and using the autopilot coupled without LNAV (such as HDG and VS modes). Our company encourages pilots use every level of automation at various times, so we do not let our skills atrophy in any one area.

Some pilots become so dependent on the autopilot that they allow their skills to degrade in terms of hand-flying, such as during an ILS approach. The same is true for those who hand-fly the aircraft excessively, because they may not have the ability to really use the autopilot flight guidance controls to their benefit when the situation may warrant it. Currently I am in Monterey, CA, and the ILS to Runway 10R here does not allow autopilot coupled approaches. I would hate to be that pilot who has relied on the autopilot for so long that they find it difficult to hand-fly the approach, especially in the windshear and rain conditions we experienced the other night.

I also would hate to be the pilot who is unable to fly without using flight guidance, in other words the flight director. Being able to fly an ILS (or even straight and level) without assistance is a skill that should not be allowed to degrade.

It seems like this argument was between groups falling on either the automation side or the pilot's skill side. I fall in between. I think a solid, professional aviator should have the skills to use the autopilot effectively, and be able to fly the aircraft effectively. Not only that, they should be able to do it smoothly and with great accuracy. That only comes with using every level of automation, from raw data to autopilot coupled.

We sometimes forget through all our bravado that we are flying paying customers around, and they deserve our very best. We may be able to hand-fly a complex departure better than the autopilot, but sometimes we must swallow our pride and turn on that autopilot to reduce the workload of our fellow crewmember. At the same time, we also must have the confidence and skill to know when it's appropriate to click off the autopilot and go back to "old skool" ways and just fly. A true professional will always take the best course of action to permit a safe, smooth ride for the customers.

Personally, I LOVE flying by hand. I hand-fly up to cruise, and often turn off the autopilot by 10,000 feet on descent. However, I make sure I don't let my knowledge of the FMS and autopilot degrade to a point where I have to hand-fly. I think it is monumentally important to been well-rounded in this regard.
 
FlyChicaga said:
I was following the course of this thread from my PDA, so I didn't have an opportunity to respond to it like I would have hoped. It really was a good discussion.

At our company, we have what is called, "Levels of Automation." There are four of them, starting with hand-flown raw data, moving up to autopilot coupled LNAV. In between is hand-flying using the flight director, and using the autopilot coupled without LNAV (such as HDG and VS modes). Our company encourages pilots use every level of automation at various times, so we do not let our skills atrophy in any one area.

Some pilots become so dependent on the autopilot that they allow their skills to degrade in terms of hand-flying, such as during an ILS approach. The same is true for those who hand-fly the aircraft excessively, because they may not have the ability to really use the autopilot flight guidance controls to their benefit when the situation may warrant it. Currently I am in Monterey, CA, and the ILS to Runway 10R here does not allow autopilot coupled approaches. I would hate to be that pilot who has relied on the autopilot for so long that they find it difficult to hand-fly the approach, especially in the windshear and rain conditions we experienced the other night.

I also would hate to be the pilot who is unable to fly without using flight guidance, in other words the flight director. Being able to fly an ILS (or even straight and level) without assistance is a skill that should not be allowed to degrade.

It seems like this argument was between groups falling on either the automation side or the pilot's skill side. I fall in between. I think a solid, professional aviator should have the skills to use the autopilot effectively, and be able to fly the aircraft effectively. Not only that, they should be able to do it smoothly and with great accuracy. That only comes with using every level of automation, from raw data to autopilot coupled.

We sometimes forget through all our bravado that we are flying paying customers around, and they deserve our very best. We may be able to hand-fly a complex departure better than the autopilot, but sometimes we must swallow our pride and turn on that autopilot to reduce the workload of our fellow crewmember. At the same time, we also must have the confidence and skill to know when it's appropriate to click off the autopilot and go back to "old skool" ways and just fly. A true professional will always take the best course of action to permit a safe, smooth ride for the customers.

Personally, I LOVE flying by hand. I hand-fly up to cruise, and often turn off the autopilot by 10,000 feet on descent. However, I make sure I don't let my knowledge of the FMS and autopilot degrade to a point where I have to hand-fly. I think it is monumentally important to been well-rounded in this regard.
Click to expand...

Excellent post Matt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top