Why do some simmers use the autopilot for every phase of flight?

[vololiberista 205]

I wasn't aware of that fact. Maybe he had to take a break at that point for legal reasons. But the co-pilots shows poor judgement by not calling him back earlier as well as with their flying skills. I imagine rules have changed a lot since that accident.

Yes I think he had to take a legal break. But, wouldn't you as Commander delay that for a few minutes to ensure the safety of your passengers crew and aircraft? That is after all one of the duties of being a Captain.

In the context of this thread, remember that the AF447 pilots were hand-flying.

Yes, but clearly they had forgotten how to. That was a classic example of automation taking pilots out of the loop.

[HoratioWondersocks 4]

Hello
Take off.Autopilot on .Reach cruise.Beer and infight movie (BBC iplayer and something interesting )Desend approach ,autopilot off,land.
Excellent.
I LOVE!my autopilot.
I love to relax in this manner.

Cheers Andy

Socks the ONE and only

Edited October 18, 2014 by FloG
Removed multiple posts

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

Use AP for bathroom break or checking on my food cooking. Otherwise, I hand fly as I normally low and slow flyer interested in wind direction and where wind stock direction is blowing. Tubeflying is way more precise and techincal. All stick with c172 or PA28 or c162 something basic to take and land.

[Mickeyj 35]

If I could find out what the SOP is for a typical airline 'flight' (how long after Departure should one be at cruising altitude, when should Descent start, etc.), then maybe I'd be more confident flying the big iron and therefore, use the AP more!

 

Hats off to the folks who fly these birds on a regular basis, both in the Sim and IRL; this environment definitely ups the immersion level by quite a bit!

 

Also... don't be too hard on the OP for asking the question in the first place; to you big iron drivers out there, my query is probably a lot worse!

 

Hi there,

 

the SOP in my company concerning handflying depatures and approaches is that you can either fly it by hand or with the AP coupled when traffic an weather permitts and if your still fit.

So to fly a departure manually in good weather conditions is very welcome. I personally fly nearly every departure manual.

[mgh 89]

Yes, but clearly they had forgotten how to. That was a classic example of automation taking pilots out of the loop.

 

i disagreeabout taking pilots out of the loop  - it because the pilots ignored what they were told to do. They had to memorise a simple one page memory procedure in the case of an  unreliable speed indication - a proceedure that applies to any any Airbus or Boeing aircaft. .

 

All they basically had to do was  set N1 to the CLB detent and pitch to 5% above 10000 ft to stabilise the situation. They  could then followed then instructions on the ECAM/ QRH.

 

No amount of hand-flying would have prevent the pilots ignoring the established memory proceedure - especially at night, in a storrm and at over 30000ft in the middle of the Atlantic.

[JRBarrett 3,048]

I am a big fan of hand-flying during the takeoff/climb and descent/approach/landing phases. It increases one's overall proficiency, and is just plain more fun to boot.

 

Several pilots who work for my company (Part 135 charter) are over 50, and all began their aviation careers back before the advent of FMS and glass cockpits - and every one of them likes to hand-fly as often as possible.

 

However, from a legal, regulatory perspective, once established in cruise flight at RVSM flight levels, (at or above FL290), the use of the autopilot is REQUIRED - at least for altitude management. Though an aircraft CAN be dispatched with an inoperative autopilot, (if the MMEL permits it), company SOPs might restrict it, and under FAA regulations, no aircraft can fly in RVSM airspace unless the autopilot is fully operational and used.

[vololiberista 205]

i disagreeabout taking pilots out of the loop  - it because the pilots ignored what they were told to do. They had to memorise a simple one page memory procedure in the case of an  unreliable speed indication - a proceedure that applies to any any Airbus or Boeing aircaft. .

 

All they basically had to do was  set N1 to the CLB detent and pitch to 5% above 10000 ft to stabilise the situation. They  could then followed then instructions on the ECAM/ QRH.

 

No amount of hand-flying would have prevent the pilots ignoring the established memory proceedure - especially at night, in a storrm and at over 30000ft in the middle of the Atlantic.

I don't really want to get into a debate about AF447 as this subject has been done to death on Avsim.

Suffice to say though that basic flying technique learnt on single engine a/c dictates that when you loose airspeed indication you fly attitude and thrust. They did not. In fact if they had done nothing at all they most likely would have survived. Many pilots now put so much reliance on all the cockpit computers that when something happens it takes them totally by surprise. Because they were not monitoring nor constantly running the "what if" scenario. That is what's meant by being out of the loop.

Your second comment is not correct. It has been established beyond doubt that all three crew totally ignored all the instruments, all the warnings, and did not cross check each other not even the Captain. This is an accident that should never have happened and it's no wonder that AF changed their training practices after! Now lets get back on topic.

[mgh 89]

 

 

Your second comment is not correct. It has been established beyond doubt that all three crew totally ignored all the instruments, all the warnings, and did not cross check each other not even the Captain. This is an accident that should never have happened and it's no wonder that AF changed their training practices after!

 

That's not a consequence of not hand-flying, which is the topic.

[pilottj 198]

With tubeliners, since I have no co pilot, I consider the Autopilot to be my co pilot in a sense that helps free me up to take care of some procedures.  With GA types, I usually turn on the AP during cruise to give my arm a break.  

 

That's one thing I love about the A2A Cherokee, it has a very simple autopilot that is really only good for giving one's arm a break during a long cruise trip, otherwise it forces you to actually fly the airplane.  It's very rewarding to fly the Cherokee down an IAP down to minimums and pop out below the cloud layer to land.

 

I think with the AP and Magenta line usage, it is a sign of the times.  We live in the IPAD generation now, people are used to and expect automation.  I was watching a video on the latest G1000 features, it will have an internet interface so pilots can check their facebook status and watch youtube videos....you know, real important flying activities...what is next? Pilots texting while flying? lol

 

Cheers

TJ 

[z06z33 763]

i disagreeabout taking pilots out of the loop  - it because the pilots ignored what they were told to do. They had to memorise a simple one page memory procedure in the case of an  unreliable speed indication - a proceedure that applies to any any Airbus or Boeing aircaft. .

 

All they basically had to do was  set N1 to the CLB detent and pitch to 5% above 10000 ft to stabilise the situation. They  could then followed then instructions on the ECAM/ QRH.

 

No amount of hand-flying would have prevent the pilots ignoring the established memory proceedure - especially at night, in a storrm and at over 30000ft in the middle of the Atlantic.

Instead of all that all they needed to do was drop the nose and give it full power....Stall recovery is learned on about the 2nd or 3rd lesson. I know the A330 is a complex plane but its still a plane and aero dynamics work the same way as they do in a C152.

[speedyTC 194]

Instead of all that all they needed to do was drop the nose and give it full power....Stall recovery is learned on about the 2nd or 3rd lesson. I know the A330 is a complex plane but its still a plane and aero dynamics work the same way as they do in a C152.

Errr..not quite that straightforward especially since they had not actually recognised they were in a stall situation. If memory serves me correctly (and at my age that is questionable) they were getting indications of overspeed which was why they were pulling back on the stick. 

[mgh 89]

The  BEA English language report began:
 

Thus, the accident resulted from the following succession of events:

Temporary inconsistency between the airspeed measurements, likely following the obstruction of the Pitot probes by ice crystals that, in particular, caused the autopilot disconnection and the reconfiguration to alternate law;

Inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;

The lack of any link by the crew between the loss of indicated speeds called out and the appropriate procedure;
 

[Oracle427 45]

 

 

Instead of all that all they needed to do was drop the nose and give it full power....

 

At the very altitudes and true airspeeds that these aircraft are operating at you are working your way up into the coffin corner were you need to be remain at speeds near overspeed just to remain airborne. A stall is extremely dangerous and the recovery may not be as straightforward as pitching down and picking up more flying speed.

 

Now, I don't know how close they were to this area of flight on that day, but I understand that this is a real concern in high altitude flying.

[vololiberista 205]

Errr..not quite that straightforward especially since they had not actually recognised they were in a stall situation. If memory serves me correctly (and at my age that is questionable) they were getting indications of overspeed which was why they were pulling back on the stick. 

The first warning was when the airspeed was inconsistent.  The system went into manual mode. The automatic response for unreliable airspeed is attitude and thrust. So if they had done nothing all would have been well as the thrust and atttiude were correct immediately before. So instead of maintaning attitude and thrust the PF pulled the stick fully back and pretty much maintained that position. It was that which caused the stall warning which everyone proceded to ignore. They ignored the stall warning and every other instrument indication even when the IAS came back they didn't monitor it. They sat there with the stick fully back wondering why the a/c was falling out of the sky. Simple basic flying techniques learnt as a student would have prevented the accident.

 

 

At the very altitudes and true airspeeds that these aircraft are operating at you are working your way up into the coffin corner were you need to be remain at speeds near overspeed just to remain airborne. A stall is extremely dangerous and the recovery may not be as straightforward as pitching down and picking up more flying speed.

 

Now, I don't know how close they were to this area of flight on that day, but I understand that this is a real concern in high altitude flying.

Stall recovery is the same. It gets dangerous close to the ground obviously. Coffin corner is really when the a/c is flying at or above its maximum ceiling. In the case of jet transports their operating ceiling is well below what the a/c is actually capable of. Cofin corner really applies to military jets like the U2 for example.

 

That's not a consequence of not hand-flying, which is the topic.

Sorry but they were hand flying. The AP had disconnected and so the a/c was responding to manual inputs. That is the definition of hand flying.

[Bush lover 0]

I don't really use it at all my sylph. Mostly because I find auto pilot extremely boring and in real life I couldn't imagine not hand flying. Honestly I find it takes some of the magic away from flight.

 

I can see that its nice for airliner pilots but I'm not one of them.