الكل
← Back to Squawk list
Pilots, not computers, should fly planes
As the National Transportation Safety Board begins public hearings on Wednesday into the crash of an Asiana Airlines Boeing 777 in San Francisco in July, one question is certain to keep popping up: Have pilots become too dependent on computer systems to fly their airplanes? The simple answer is yes. (www.cnn.com) المزيد...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
I don't think it we need an extreme on one side or the other. Commercial pilots should be required to train on both the use of FMS as well as stick and rudder. I think it is a mistake to simply increase the hours required for a pilot. The FAA required recurrent training for MU2s to fix a safety problem. The same should be done for the rest of the industry. It isn't hours that make a pilot safe, it's the understanding of every aspect of the profession. It's not the hours but what you do with the hours. Airline pilots should be required to train proficiency in not only FMS approaches but also hand flown approaches. Required upset or acrobatic training in a turbine aircraft in addition to simulator training on the aircraft systems should be the standard.
Well Said!! Couldn't agree more!! Automation is a tool, not a crutch.
Tool ! Dependence on 'tool', all the time ? Inability to fly without the 'tool' ?
I guess that's the main issue !
Aviation, as you guys have taught me, is NECESSARILY a combination of IFR and VFR, without defining which comes when. Right ?
Thus, in either situation, the pilot is paramount. Not the tool/crutch, call it by any name. Crutch connotes helplessness and tool implies convenience, which slowly becomes inseparable from the process involved.
Right ?
I guess that's the main issue !
Aviation, as you guys have taught me, is NECESSARILY a combination of IFR and VFR, without defining which comes when. Right ?
Thus, in either situation, the pilot is paramount. Not the tool/crutch, call it by any name. Crutch connotes helplessness and tool implies convenience, which slowly becomes inseparable from the process involved.
Right ?
You're getting there. When the tool becomes the accepted way of life, rather than a helper, that is where the problems start coming in.
Use of good tools such as FMS, A/P, and so forth are great... But keep in mind that if you lean on a tool to hard it will break when you least expect it. But in some cases people also pick up the wrong tool. Instead of using their tools saying too low and too slow, they were using their visual tools (AKA EYE's) watch a visual approach and not paying quite as much attention as they should have been.
Great comment and well stated.
Great comment and well stated.
I have been saying that for along time as has been many of us... Pilots need a lot more hands on time. When pilots call me with a problem and I have to defer the A/P you would be surprised how many try to get us to take another route... Way too dependent on the automation.
WOW - you are so right, and so wrong at the same time
As a captain I have always gotten my first officers to hand fly as much as possible. Too much of the 600feet autopilot on, 400 feet autopilot off pilots out there. In good weather I ask my FO and I myself fly to at least 18,000 feet, and usually 24,000. In bad weather when Icing is possible I insist on hands flying all the time, with breaks of a few minutes as needed.
ON THE OTHER HAND - it is a pain in the butt for pilots to hand fly straight and level for hours and hours. In fact, it would do the opposite of what more hand flying is supposed to achieve. When pilots hand fly approaches thats a good thing, when they hand fly all the climbs and descents thats a good thing, when they fly when ice could be forming that is a good thing, or when caught in a storm.
But flying straight and level for hours and hours it causes the pilot to be tired - eyes stressed. so when you say that pilots are not keeping up on their skills when they try to get out of fling a plane with an inop auto-pilot ALL DAY LONG - many of which are multiple leg days - many on long days up to 16 hours long..
It is for that very purpose that auto pilots were invented, and make the most amount of sense. It's when those autopilots started doing more than that- when it started doing holds, and approaches, and departure procedures, etc etc - thats when the flying skills really started degrading - when 777 captains only get 5 - 6 real hand flown landings a month - thats the problem.
And now that we have RVSM - and the planes are twice as close to one another at altitude, with closure rates as high as 1.8M and only 1000 feet separation (if all the equipment is working perfectly) - you combine a little turbulence plus hour 7 and you have a midair collision... or you are so tired at the end of your 16 hour day with 7.9 hours of flying that when you fly that approach by hand after flying by hand all day and night, that you just dip a couple dots on glide-slope during the approach... THAT is why we don't want to fly a plane all day that has no auto-pilot.
On paper, it's real easy to say you agree that pilots are lazy because they don't want to fly a plane that has no working autopilot - and most people will agree with you - hell, lets all jump on the bandwagon here, lets all agree to agree with one another.... right up until you are on the plane with the over tired pilot who slips two dots below the glideslope after a full day like that.. then you want your crew to be well rested and alert... because I am telling you - hand flying straight and level all day (when you fly for a living) - turns your brain to mush.
Oh, and when you fly for a living, it becomes pretty clear - really quickly, you don't call in fatigued when you are tired or there will be hell to pay.
As a captain I have always gotten my first officers to hand fly as much as possible. Too much of the 600feet autopilot on, 400 feet autopilot off pilots out there. In good weather I ask my FO and I myself fly to at least 18,000 feet, and usually 24,000. In bad weather when Icing is possible I insist on hands flying all the time, with breaks of a few minutes as needed.
ON THE OTHER HAND - it is a pain in the butt for pilots to hand fly straight and level for hours and hours. In fact, it would do the opposite of what more hand flying is supposed to achieve. When pilots hand fly approaches thats a good thing, when they hand fly all the climbs and descents thats a good thing, when they fly when ice could be forming that is a good thing, or when caught in a storm.
But flying straight and level for hours and hours it causes the pilot to be tired - eyes stressed. so when you say that pilots are not keeping up on their skills when they try to get out of fling a plane with an inop auto-pilot ALL DAY LONG - many of which are multiple leg days - many on long days up to 16 hours long..
It is for that very purpose that auto pilots were invented, and make the most amount of sense. It's when those autopilots started doing more than that- when it started doing holds, and approaches, and departure procedures, etc etc - thats when the flying skills really started degrading - when 777 captains only get 5 - 6 real hand flown landings a month - thats the problem.
And now that we have RVSM - and the planes are twice as close to one another at altitude, with closure rates as high as 1.8M and only 1000 feet separation (if all the equipment is working perfectly) - you combine a little turbulence plus hour 7 and you have a midair collision... or you are so tired at the end of your 16 hour day with 7.9 hours of flying that when you fly that approach by hand after flying by hand all day and night, that you just dip a couple dots on glide-slope during the approach... THAT is why we don't want to fly a plane all day that has no auto-pilot.
On paper, it's real easy to say you agree that pilots are lazy because they don't want to fly a plane that has no working autopilot - and most people will agree with you - hell, lets all jump on the bandwagon here, lets all agree to agree with one another.... right up until you are on the plane with the over tired pilot who slips two dots below the glideslope after a full day like that.. then you want your crew to be well rested and alert... because I am telling you - hand flying straight and level all day (when you fly for a living) - turns your brain to mush.
Oh, and when you fly for a living, it becomes pretty clear - really quickly, you don't call in fatigued when you are tired or there will be hell to pay.
> "when 777 captains only get 5 - 6 real hand flown landings a month - thats the problem"
You seem to consider ONLY 5-6 stick landings a ninth too little. But if all pilots consistently performed 5-6 manual landings per month, the Asiana crash would not have happened.
You seem to consider ONLY 5-6 stick landings a ninth too little. But if all pilots consistently performed 5-6 manual landings per month, the Asiana crash would not have happened.
You can say that again dear friend PhotoFinish !
Asiana crash is one of the best examples to understand the importance of proficiency of VFR ,inspite of all the automation.
Take the case of flying in space as it stands today. Inspite of full remote control at ground the astronauts do their own manoeuvring.
Space travel at commercial level is just round the corner. How do you visualise its control and flying ?
There will be FMS no doubt. BUT there will be two additional 'pilots' to supervise the flight.
One(or two) in the cock pit and the other on the ground. Each one ready and electronically capable to take over from FMS ! Or from each other if need arises.
And that's what is needed in aviation as it stands today.
Asiana crash is one of the best examples to understand the importance of proficiency of VFR ,inspite of all the automation.
Take the case of flying in space as it stands today. Inspite of full remote control at ground the astronauts do their own manoeuvring.
Space travel at commercial level is just round the corner. How do you visualise its control and flying ?
There will be FMS no doubt. BUT there will be two additional 'pilots' to supervise the flight.
One(or two) in the cock pit and the other on the ground. Each one ready and electronically capable to take over from FMS ! Or from each other if need arises.
And that's what is needed in aviation as it stands today.