According to this article http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/faa_manual_flight_skills_pilot_airnline_safo_207986-1.html

 

The FAA is seeing a decline in manual flying skills. More reliance on autopilot and not keeping your manual flying skills sharp. Of course in the RW it will depend on each companies SOP.

 

With the advent of even more modern aircraft with more automated systems, its tempting to put on autopilot earlier than is necessary rather than flying manually on takeoffs and landings occasionally to keep flying manually sharp. Especially if there is some sort of failure.

 

I admit I do it, but I have been more concious of it, and try to fly manual until the aircraft is stable in a climb and at least 5000' up with no turns after takeoff, and nearly all landings are manual landings exception being of course Cat II + III autolands.

 

So how are your manual flying skills? When do you use your autopilot?

I, as the pilot, take off and manually fly until about 500-1000 feet and the gear goes up and I have a positive rate of climb. I then have the co-pilot take over and place the aircraft in AP and let it fly based on the aircraft's FMC. The co-pilot then flies based on the ProATC-X flightplan I used to program the FMC. At the destination, I'll disengage the AP about 10 miles out and manually land the aircraft myself. Sometimes though I'll let the AP bring the aircraft down to just before touching down then I'll take over. I have XPAX and hard landings are not good for my virtual passengers so I'll do the landing myself. Mostly works very well.

 

If you know how to program the FMC properly, you can almost takeoff and land automatically.

 

Best regards,

Jim

There was a good thread about this some years ago. Some simmers were concerned that they used autopilot too much, and the question went out to real world pilots about how much they used the autopilot.

 

The answers I remember were that some pilots said they flew 95% of the time on autopilot. One pilot preferred to hand fly up to 10,000 feet. It was probably in this thread that it was mentioned that many pilots preferred to hand fly in turbulence as they felt they could give a better ride to the passengers than the autopilot in those conditions.

 

I mean, imagine that... flight simmers questioning if they were using the autopilot too much. This was, of course, before the days of the 737 NGX. Flying seems to have become synonymous with programming the FMC, and I think something's been lost.

 

Hook

Depends on the aircraft, typically if it is a long x country I will use the autopilot. If it is sightseeing or just messing around I hand fly. The RV-7 for instance is a very agile plane with sensitive controls, so the AP is handy to give my arm a break for long trips, and an approach in IMC, especially in turbulent conditions.

In the real world it is mostly about economics, and go-arounds are expensive.

 

I usually cut treetops when flying, so autopilot is not of much use, but if I fly A-B I use the autopilot from 1000 to 1000 ft AGL. I'd really like to fly more stick and rudder, but my Saitek Yoke sucks big time and is hopless for prescision flying.

Isnt cruise exempt from this discussion for the most part? I would think cruise flight would be an automatic thing. There is no way either pilot will want to be holding the yoke or stick for hours on end on level flight.

 

I would think this would be referring more to takeoffs and landings below 10000 AGL.

When I fly the heavies, I always try to fly the SID manually until I either reach the end of the departure route or I climb above 10000ft, then I switch on AP and let it fly until it comes to the approach, which I fly manually most of the time, again.

With GA props, I always try to fly manually, and trim the plane out for a level flight. That's actually more fun I my opinion, and a greater "thrill", as you always have to watch the aircraft closely.

There is no way either pilot will want to be holding the yoke or stick for hours on end on level flight.

 

Lemme tell you about a 4 hour helicopter flight I made last year. No autopilot, and constant tweaking of controls. Oh... and no time compression, obviously.

 

I've only recently started using an autopilot again flying a propliner. But even that is mostly manual, as there's no GPS and I don't enter a flight plan anyway. Most of the time there aren't even radio navaids available. The autopilot has an altitude hold and a heading hold, all anyone ever really needs.

 

Hook

With the B747, I generally fly manually to 10000 ft (after which precise control with the Saitek yoke becomes more difficult), unless there are lots of high-speed turns involved in the departure sequence. I disengage the autopilot and autothrottle after the glide slope has been captured and flaps are set to at least 10. It is always easier when the configuration of the aircraft will not need to be changed, but I like to treat myself with ample manual flight time.

Same here as Jim, takeoff - AP on above 2000ft - AP off before the approach. Manual landings are incredibly immersive and fun, and if I let AP to land the airplane, that is like I'm watching a screensaver almost.

In the NGX I normally fly manual till 10000 ft after takeoff. On approach I turn off the AP after landing checklist is complete and the runway is in sight.

It depends on the airplane. I took the Aerosoft Airbus X extreme out for a spin yesterday using Opus X weather engine on FSX. It was VERY foggy day in Seattle (Cat III foggy). In fact, it still is Cat III foggy in Seattle, although when I left work it was improving to Cat II conditions (1500EST). I hand flew a Cat II approach down to 100 ft above the runway. I could make out lights, but could not make out the centerline clearly, so I went around. The second approach was done Cat III dual autopilot automatic landing. I broke out of the cover at about 50 feet over the runway and disengaged the AP and hand flew the last 50 feet (not exactly SOP, the AP should do the landing)...but you get the idea.

 

The point made here is that I hand fly the approach as much as possible. Of course, zero wind conditions helped...but it's practice that allows me to get the Airbus down to 100ft and be over the runway in fog. The other point to make here as we start using products such as Opus X and AccuSim, which more accurately model winds, we are getting a first glimpse into the dynamics of landing in conditions that are less than ideal. Crosswind landings are significantly more realistic (and much harder now), but they more accurately model what you could reasonably begin to expect in a good simulator.

 

Of course, it also helps to have flown a few times in a real Level D type simulator with a ATP instructor pilot :rolleyes:

 

Hand flying the airplane is the challenge. Using autopilot in the real world is pretty much SOP if you are flying an RNAV SID or STAR due to the GPS requirement. In those situations, real world pilots kick on the autopilot as soon as they are off the deck and leave it on until they are about 500 ft from landing again. That said, they have to also demonstrate that they can do it BY HAND, without an autopilot...because autopilots do crap out. When they do, they get MELed, pilots are not permitted to use RNAV anything and their work gets exponentially much harder. Automation is a wonderful thing...however, pilots still have to know how to drive.

 

Something to consider for us Sunday simmers....

 

Cheers,

Dave Lamb

In the NGX I use the autopilot from about 1000ft up and down, started flying the RJ70 a good bit into small unprepared strips (they do a gravel kit for it don't they?).

 

Makes for a lot of interesting manual flying!..

 

G

Same here as most hand fly up to 10,000 then on AP until glideslope comes down.

Interesting input. Although I personally like to have auto throttle on as I feel it manages the speed better and i can concentrate on the FD direction.