Hand Flown RNAV SIDS and STARS

Did you just… "back on the Embraer" me? TRIGGERED! :)

The 321's have the multiscan, the 319/320's have the "Well, the feds say you need to have a weather radar, let's just say that box technically qualifies as radar but you wouldn't exactly, you know, want to really use it and I can give you a real good deal on them" units.

Yeah, I did.

Did you just make a mad dog reference above? Because the mad dog doesn't exist anymore. The mad dog is being parked.
 
Because the mad dog doesn't exist anymore. The mad dog is being parked.
It most certainly does exist. It may be in the process of being parked, but it will continue to produce real pilots, just like all its MD brethren. Don't ask a Maddog driver if he's a pilot, he'll tell you if he is and you'll only embarrass yourself if not.
 
So in recurrent, we had to handfly a SID and a STAR, which is kind of 'uhh, just follow the flight director and monitor your flightpath and airspeed… Le snore"

But apparently the FAA has largely mandated that we all cover this in QC, but not necessarily because of our group having deviations, but from the 121 group as a whole.

What in the world is going on out there?

"Hey what in the world is this thing doing again?"

The FAA's heavy handed solution is reduce a level of automation. So now they are showing you you can do it. So yeah. A few pilots ruin in for the rest of us, sadly.
 
I think the idea is right, here.

I feel it would be good for us to be reminded a few times per trip that we're actually flying an airplane. Average to moderate workloads should be perfectly manageable while handflying.

Personally, I've discovered (to my chagrin) that fully turning the automation off and handflying a full arrival does somewhat reduce my awareness of all of the tertiary stuff; I don't find myself saturated, but quite a bit of my focus is simply on airspeed, attitude, thrust, and speeds on the arrival... and that's with a vertical profile that pretty much paints vertical and lateral guidance even with the flight director off, and a tablet showing all the fixes.

You can laugh at me if you wish, and intimate that I'm an inferior pilot, but I believe that flying a highly-automated airplane with the automation on invites you to take for granted your ability to fly without it. I still believe that the only way we can be safe pilots is if we practice the actual flying bits enough to be able to do them smoothly, confidently, consistently as second nature in whatever airplane we're in, when we need to... and I feel like it's important to be able to directly, efficiently control the flight path and energy management of a 40-400 ton jet before you hand it off to automation.

Obviously we all CAN hand-fly raw-data arrivals and approaches to minimums with one engine inoperative, but can we do it smoothly and precisely as a crew while managing other workload demands, or will it be an ugly affair full of "ehh..." moments that, while well within parameters, leaves no room for additional awareness or workload?

I dunno, maybe I'm just not "Tier I."

-Fox
 
I think the idea is right, here.

I feel it would be good for us to be reminded a few times per trip that we're actually flying an airplane. Average to moderate workloads should be perfectly manageable while handflying.

Personally, I've discovered (to my chagrin) that fully turning the automation off and handflying a full arrival does somewhat reduce my awareness of all of the tertiary stuff; I don't find myself saturated, but quite a bit of my focus is simply on airspeed, attitude, thrust, and speeds on the arrival... and that's with a vertical profile that pretty much paints vertical and lateral guidance even with the flight director off, and a tablet showing all the fixes.

You can laugh at me if you wish, and intimate that I'm an inferior pilot, but I believe that flying a highly-automated airplane with the automation on invites you to take for granted your ability to fly without it. I still believe that the only way we can be safe pilots is if we practice the actual flying bits enough to be able to do them smoothly, confidently, consistently as second nature in whatever airplane we're in, when we need to... and I feel like it's important to be able to directly, efficiently control the flight path and energy management of a 40-400 ton jet before you hand it off to automation.

Obviously we all CAN hand-fly raw-data arrivals and approaches to minimums with one engine inoperative, but can we do it smoothly and precisely as a crew while managing other workload demands, or will it be an ugly affair full of "ehh..." moments that, while well within parameters, leaves no room for additional awareness or workload?

I dunno, maybe I'm just not "Tier I."

-Fox
Available scholarly studies suggest that rote mechanical flying skills (basic control of attitude, thrust, configuration etc.) are learned to the point of overlearning, but that cognitive skills (situation and position awareness) atrophy fastest in highly-automated flight environments.

The presupposition (for some reason, they all seem to use 747 drivers - perhaps that's because that is the hardware that is available easily to a lot of HF people for some reason) is that the BAI skills are learned correctly to start with.
 
Available scholarly studies suggest that rote mechanical flying skills (basic control of attitude, thrust, configuration etc.) are learned to the point of overlearning, but that cognitive skills (situation and position awareness) atrophy fastest in highly-automated flight environments.

The presupposition (for some reason, they all seem to use 747 drivers - perhaps that's because that is the hardware that is available easily to a lot of HF people for some reason) is that the BAI skills are learned correctly to start with.

I don't feel this response really addresses what I posted, which isn't that mechanical skills become deficient, per-se, but that the less you hand fly, the more peripheral awareness is diminished during manual flight regimes; that is to say, when the mechanical flying skills fall below the level of automaticity due to disuse, situational and position awareness are necessarily impacted... but without the ability to handfly and, in the process, maintain adequate situational and positional awareness, we're allowing automation to lull us into a false confidence about our position and situation, I feel.

The mechanical flying skills (and recognize that automation skills are simply mechanical flying skills by proxy) ARE the foundations of flying; everything else stacks on top of that, so they SHOULD be overlearned to the point of automaticity, and they should be practiced to ensure they remain there.

I'd also suggest that "available scholarly articles" are almost certainly materially deficient, even where they suggest acceptable data, data that concurs with consensus, or data that agrees with a particular point; it is extremely difficult to implement and instrument a study in these domains with an acceptable degree of scientific rigor and achieve a material, contextually-applicable conclusion. You, yourself, cited an example of this in that "they all seem to use 747 drivers."

Keep the airplane flying, keep the airplane going where you want it, and everything else, in that order.

My 82¢.

-Fox
 
I don't feel this response really addresses what I posted, which isn't that mechanical skills become deficient, per-se, but that the less you hand fly, the more peripheral awareness is diminished during manual flight regimes; that is to say, when the mechanical flying skills fall below the level of automaticity due to disuse, situational and position awareness are necessarily impacted... but without the ability to handfly and, in the process, maintain adequate situational and positional awareness, we're allowing automation to lull us into a false confidence about our position and situation, I feel.

The mechanical flying skills (and recognize that automation skills are simply mechanical flying skills by proxy) ARE the foundations of flying; everything else stacks on top of that, so they SHOULD be overlearned to the point of automaticity, and they should be practiced to ensure they remain there.

I'd also suggest that "available scholarly articles" are almost certainly materially deficient, even where they suggest acceptable data, data that concurs with consensus, or data that agrees with a particular point; it is extremely difficult to implement and instrument a study in these domains with an acceptable degree of scientific rigor and achieve a material, contextually-applicable conclusion. You, yourself, cited an example of this in that "they all seem to use 747 drivers."

Keep the airplane flying, keep the airplane going where you want it, and everything else, in that order.

My 82¢.

-Fox
You're right - we'll stop looking into it. ;)
 
You're right - we'll stop looking into it. ;)

Oh snap. I forgot that I was supposed to recognize you as an expert and defer to your statements, rather than attempting to engage in discussion on these matters.

I just realized that this forum has experts in every field... I'm a fool for thinking I ever had anything to add.

Sorry. Damn.

I'm out.

-Fox
 
Oh snap. I forgot that I was supposed to recognize you as an expert and defer to your statements, rather than attempting to engage in discussion on these matters.

I just realized that this forum has experts in every field... I'm a fool for thinking I ever had anything to add.

Sorry. Damn.

I'm out.

-Fox

I think he was just conversatin', Fox... I don't think he meant nothin'.
 
I think he was just conversatin', Fox... I don't think he meant nothin'.

I don't know whether to read that in this voice:
tumblr_ol1daamPXe1u501aoo1_400.gif



Or this voice:
giphy-3.gif


:)
 
I think the idea is right, here.

I feel it would be good for us to be reminded a few times per trip that we're actually flying an airplane. Average to moderate workloads should be perfectly manageable while handflying.

Personally, I've discovered (to my chagrin) that fully turning the automation off and handflying a full arrival does somewhat reduce my awareness of all of the tertiary stuff; I don't find myself saturated, but quite a bit of my focus is simply on airspeed, attitude, thrust, and speeds on the arrival... and that's with a vertical profile that pretty much paints vertical and lateral guidance even with the flight director off, and a tablet showing all the fixes.

You can laugh at me if you wish, and intimate that I'm an inferior pilot, but I believe that flying a highly-automated airplane with the automation on invites you to take for granted your ability to fly without it. I still believe that the only way we can be safe pilots is if we practice the actual flying bits enough to be able to do them smoothly, confidently, consistently as second nature in whatever airplane we're in, when we need to... and I feel like it's important to be able to directly, efficiently control the flight path and energy management of a 40-400 ton jet before you hand it off to automation.

Obviously we all CAN hand-fly raw-data arrivals and approaches to minimums with one engine inoperative, but can we do it smoothly and precisely as a crew while managing other workload demands, or will it be an ugly affair full of "ehh..." moments that, while well within parameters, leaves no room for additional awareness or workload?

I dunno, maybe I'm just not "Tier I."

-Fox

I really think you would enjoy flying the CRJ! Downwind click off the AP and fly, takeoff and fly the RNAV. Fun times.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
We've got one CA here that clicks off the AP and FD at 18K and flies it in whether we're in the sticks or NYC.

It really depends on that person's situational awareness. I've found that when I'm hand flying usually it's the loading up of the pilot monitoring that makes me say "ok, he's not going to be able to back me up so it's time to turn on the automation."

If you're going to hand fly...monitor your pilot monitoring. They're there to save your ass, if they're getting task saturated, help them out.
 
Oh snap. I forgot that I was supposed to recognize you as an expert and defer to your statements, rather than attempting to engage in discussion on these matters.

I just realized that this forum has experts in every field... I'm a fool for thinking I ever had anything to add.

Sorry. Damn.

I'm out.

-Fox

Did you know he's a pilot too? He doesn't like to bring it up. :-P
 
Not sure what the issues are in the 121 community with hand flying RNAV SID/STARs. In the CRJ I regularly handfly SIDs, and although I usually let automation do the heavy lifting on STARs you have to be engaged with the process all the way down to hit speeds and altitudes. It's fun flying the STARS. With the simple level of automation on the CRJ it wouldn't really be any different handflying a STAR and commanding the PM to make changes on the FCP.
 
It really depends on that person's situational awareness. I've found that when I'm hand flying usually it's the loading up of the pilot monitoring that makes me say "ok, he's not going to be able to back me up so it's time to turn on the automation."

If you're going to hand fly...monitor your pilot monitoring. They're there to save your ass, if they're getting task saturated, help them out.

I dunno man, if your PM is getting so task saturated making a radio call while "watching you fly" and possibly turning a knob or two then he/she may really need to consider another line of work...
 
It really depends on that person's situational awareness. I've found that when I'm hand flying usually it's the loading up of the pilot monitoring that makes me say "ok, he's not going to be able to back me up so it's time to turn on the automation."

If you're going to hand fly...monitor your pilot monitoring. They're there to save your ass, if they're getting task saturated, help them out.
That's what I do. If the PM is getting overloaded I'll just call for AP.
 
Back
Top