Greetings Mickyj

I have been qual'd in the beechjet 400, C-141B, KC-10A, DC-10-30, G-III and current and qualified in the G-5/550 training captain. I have about 17 years experience .

My dad flew the C-141. I really wasn't trying to knock guys for using the autopilot I was just curious to why they used it so often. In the real world I'm a very safe pilot and always follow the rules to the letter. In the sim I can escape FAR's and tend to be more daring. I'm sorry if I insulted anyone as it appears I have, I truly meant no harm.

My dad flew the C-141. I really wasn't trying to knock guys for using the autopilot I was just curious to why they used it so often. In the real world I'm a very safe pilot and always follow the rules to the letter. In the sim I can escape FAR's and tend to be more daring. I'm sorry if I insulted anyone as it appears I have, I truly meant no harm.

 

Absolutely no need to apologise as far as I am concerned.

Simmers can be terribly terribly precious at times(actually most of time)

 

Cheers Sir

Andy

In the sim, I happily fly a 50 year old single engine airplane over the Rockies at night using vintage instrumentation.

 

In the real world, especially when transporting loved ones, give me all the modern safety features possible...ie autopilots, glass, magenta lines, flying aids, you name it....the caveat with that tho is when conditions allow, turn that stuff off, look out the window, and practice good stick n rudder flying and pilottage.  You can get a lot more out of the modern safety features if you have a solid understanding of the basics.

 

Cheers

TJ

My dad flew the C-141. I really wasn't trying to knock guys for using the autopilot I was just curious to why they used it so often. In the real world I'm a very safe pilot and always follow the rules to the letter. In the sim I can escape FAR's and tend to be more daring. I'm sorry if I insulted anyone as it appears I have, I truly meant no harm.

No Sir, that was not aimed at you at all. I was just making a general post to those that actually attack other simmers. Aviation and simulation is a great hobby that we share, but some choose to go on the attack instead of good constructive discussion. There was no need for you to apologize at all and I totally respect and appreciate your gesture. I've noticed that this topic comes up a lot and I wanted to add some pointers from a real world pilot perspective. I don't consider myself precious, I'm an avid flight simmer myself. Flight sim paved the way for my real world aviation and I'm here to give back to the community. Your question actually opens up the door creating the opportunity for good discussion.  The mighty C-141 Beast and her missions took me to some quite interesting places around the world. I've even been ran out of some places in the star lifter. You should ask your dad about flying the star lizard, I know he has some good stories.

 

 

the caveat with that tho is when conditions allow, turn that stuff off, look out the window, and practice good stick n rudder flying and pilottage.

 

Greetings TJ,

I agree there are perfect times to get some hand flying in. VFR patterns and visuals are great for proficiency training in a airliner. When I was in the Air Force, we routinely flew local flights in which we would hop around different airfields mixing up the VFR and RADAR patterns. We would shoot all type of approaches in order to get everyone a M10(proficiency sortie), which required a set consisting of precision, non-precision, holding, go-around and VFR patterns. You would go with 2 or 3 guys and cycle everyone through until everyone got what they needed. Unfortunately as the IP, you didn't get much and would have to steal an approach here and there to string together an M10 after a few flights. The VFR work was all ways done AP/AT off.

 

In the C-141B we flew AP/AT off all the time. The worthless auto throttle could only be used at cruise once you attained your cruise speed. We flew a lot of air refueling, airdrop and low level flights. All of these were AP/AT off. You missed the AP during low level formation flights because they were tiring. The C-141 wasn't very response at slow speeds and it flew like a MACK truck. Being number 3 on back in the formation made it worse since you were constantly in wake turbulence fighting rolling and pitching moments.I must admit it was fun zipping around at 250ft agl at 230kts doing clock to map navigation. Using water towers, churches, tunnels and intersections as turn points made it fun. You worked that clock and map to stay on top of timing as you yanked and banked dodging VFR traffic while scanning for your turn points. I must say that TCAS was a beautiful thing after years of near misses on low level routes. The best parts was skimming the trees and coming over a ridge and diving down onto unsuspecting people below. We always laughed when we would see people run for their lives and pull to the side of roads thinking we were crashing. I guess it would look scarey having a 325,000 pound 4 engine aircraft  bearing down on you with those 4 TF33s screaming. Requesting fluid trail and going after fishing boats passing over at 50ft  was borderline illegal but fun.

No Sir, that was not aimed at you at all. I was just making a general post to those that actually attack other simmers. Aviation and simulation is a great hobby that we share, but some choose to go on the attack instead of good constructive discussion. There was no need for you to apologize at all and I totally respect and appreciate your gesture. I've noticed that this topic comes up a lot and I wanted to add some pointers from a real world pilot perspective. I don't consider myself precious, I'm an avid flight simmer myself. Flight sim paved the way for my real world aviation and I'm here to give back to the community. Your question actually opens up the door creating the opportunity for good discussion.  The mighty C-141 Beast and her missions took me to some quite interesting places around the world. I've even been ran out of some places in the star lifter. You should ask your dad about flying the star lizard, I know he has some good stories.

 

My apologies.

I didn't mean to infer that you were in anyway precious.

Anyway I have never flown anything in the real world.

So what do I know.

 

Cheers to you

Andy

Great stories Rick B)   I live near Travis AFB and remember the 141s.  When I was a kid they were still in the white and grey liveries.  I remember the airshows, Travis had their 141s and C-5s, NASA would bring their special telescope 141 in from Moffett.   Now Travis is C-5, C-17, and KC-10.  Unfortunately, I don't think the beautiful sounding TF-39 powered C-5s will be growling around above for too much longer as the newer CF6 powered C-5Ms start to proliferate the fleet.  

 

Back to topic, even G1000 pilots should know how to read an RMI...and remember the old saying from NDB flying...'Heads fall, tails rise'.  The RMI/HSI on the PFD is a very useful tool, one should practices some VOR holds using the bearing indicators, or use the berings to ID cross radials on a fix.  One of the keys to good flying is always have multiple sources of info that verify each other.  You the pilot, should monitor source A and source B, verify they match...this will allow you to spot system malfunctions or user input errors.  For instance, navigate with the magenta line as source A, but also track nearby/coursewise VORs with nav2 for source B.

 

Cheers

TJ

Greetings TJ,

I agree there are perfect times to get some hand flying in. VFR patterns and visuals are great for proficiency training in a airliner.

That does sound like some of my dads stories, I remember him saying they buzzed a Russian trawler one day and had to pull up to miss it radio mast. I can't remember if he said it was comming out of the Azores or Diego Garcia. I hope I get to have some interesting adventures as well I'm about to finish college and am trying to get a C-17 slot at his old unit in Charleston.

Edited October 21, 201411 yr by n4gix
Removed EXCESSIVE quote!

So I've been watching videos ,and it seems like a lot of simulator pilots turn the auto pilot on at 200 feet and off at 200 feet. What's the fun in that? To me hand flying an ILS with 200 ceilings and a 20 knot crosswind in the 777 is fun and its a challenge. What's the fun in watching the auto pilot do it? Not knocking anyone's flying style I'm just curious. I usually leave to autopilot off until I reach cruise and then turn it off a TOD.

 

....because everybody's different, and not everyone has the same ideas of what's fun as you?

 

Isn't it just like asking "why do people fly piston singles, when Airliners are so much more fun" ?

 

(or vice versa).

 

 

My apologies.
I didn't mean to infer that you were in anyway precious.
Anyway I have never flown anything in the real world.
So what do I know.

Cheers to you
Andy

I'm sorry Andy, i miss-understood your message.

Just because you have never flown real world doesn't mean that you are not knowledgeable. It all depends on your research and what you've been exposed too. I'm sure you have good things to add.

 

 

 

Back to topic, even G1000 pilots should know how to read an RMI...and remember the old saying from NDB flying...'Heads fall, tails rise'. The RMI/HSI on the PFD is a very useful tool, one should practices some VOR holds using the bearing indicators, or use the berings to ID cross radials on a fix. One of the keys to good flying is always have multiple sources of info that verify each other. You the pilot, should monitor source A and source B, verify they match...this will allow you to spot system malfunctions or user input errors. For instance, navigate with the magenta line as source A, but also track nearby/coursewise VORs with nav2 for source B.

Lol, I remember that saying during NDB approaches and arcs. Those concepts are what I grew up with. I all ways tune navaids along jet routes if able. I also believe in backing up departures, arrivals and approaches with navaids and radials as you mentioned.Just imagine the alternate outcome had the American 757 flight to cali tuned and monitored navaids along the way. I am a big fan of using the FMC for non precision navaid approaches. I prefer to fly in FMC and have the non flying guy/gal displaying raw data on their nav display. Some pilots feel that they better support the pilot flying by displaying the same data and i get that. But if you are not going to back up with something else, at least tune the RMI or select a needle on the nav display reflecting the raw data. At least that way you are legal.

OK, who made them??

 

 

And who exactly is to be blamed for the fact that AF447 pilots didn't even bother to go through their airspeed malfunction checklist?

I am not an Airbus pilot but I can read accident reports.

 

Actually errors have been made long before AF447 went on its flight. It starts where engineers draw a plane in their CAD apps.

 

There is no doubt that you cant read an accident report but it is JUST an report. I read a lot of them myself. Sometimes we ,me included, forget the fact that we have not been in the cockpit during the crash. We might have cool ideas that could have saved the plane. Believe me that every pilot that died in a crash in the last 50 years didnt do anything to save his a** and the ones of his passengers. Furthermore we sometimes forget that we are just humans.

 

Check this out. This is why complete intact planes drop out of the sky, ships crash into islands, companies get bankrupt and nuclear power plants explode...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_cheese_model

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_of_events_(aeronautics)

 

 

Well said. No arguments here.

 

Thanks TC!

 

It's quite easy to followi the memory procedure and stabilise the aircraft initially, and even easier not to hold the stick back when the stall warning sounds 54 sec continuously.

 

Yap i second that but ithis is the ideal world. If you´re in a high workload situation and you are facing a situation you never been trained in your brain shuts off thanks to mother nature. 

 

If you are a real world pilot trained on multi engine aircraft you will agree that facing an engine failure or an engine fire after V1 is a -lets say it sloppy- piece of cake as this is a drill you do every sim check. But having a complex situation like AF447 you most probably fail. Thanks to simulators to give us the opportunity to train these situations.

 

Greetings Mickyj

I have been qual'd in the beechjet 400, C-141B, KC-10A, DC-10-30, G-III and current and qualified in the G-5/550 training captain. I have about 17 years experience .

 

Hello Rick,

 

thanks for your comment. That is what i was lookin for in my post to discuss such things -may be in another thread on a serious level. I guess you can tell the same how quick things can change to a situation when the ###### hits the fan and how quick a crew member can stuck in his own private mental model and loses his/her situational awareness even if he/she is trained on a high standard level.

 

My dad flew the C-141. I really wasn't trying to knock guys for using the autopilot I was just curious to why they used it so often. In the real world I'm a very safe pilot and always follow the rules to the letter. In the sim I can escape FAR's and tend to be more daring. I'm sorry if I insulted anyone as it appears I have, I truly meant no harm.

 

Hi man,

 

no prob here either and i didnt want to offend other folks here with my posts. I dont think that any of the guys here had the intention to do so. Different people different opinions

 

 

Actually errors have been made long before AF447 went on its flight. It starts where engineers draw a plane in their CAD apps.

 

No they weren't.

 

The errors were caused by the pilots who were responsible of the loss of 228 lives - the engineers (nor anyone else) didn't do that.

We might have cool ideas that could have saved the plane.

No cool ideas were needed in this case, you didn't have to be a flying virtuoso or Chuck Yeager, just plain adherence to SOP.

This wasn't the famous DC-10 landing in Sioux City.

 

 

 

 but it is JUST an report.

I take it. This is what counts and what drives any future safety improvements.

Came across an article recently - it's in the September 22, 2014 issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology, subscriber access only so no link - it reports on studies currently underway at NASA Ames Research Center that suggest that the issue may not be the degradation of hand-flying skills as a result of automation.  Rather, pilots using automation tend to "zone out" and think about other things when the flight is going routinely and they aren't heavily engaged in the automation... then, when things go wrong, they have a hard time reconnecting with the situation and interpreting the data, especially unusual data, that the displays are presenting to them.  The studies were run in simulators and the subjects were airline pilots - they were asked to fly a missed approach in busy airspace in a simulator using various combinations of automation, manual control, flight director guidance and raw data.  

 

A brief, fair-use excerpt:

 

“We found that hand-flying—the very thing everyone was worried about—wasn’t really that bad,” notes Casner. “[The subject pilots] were a little rusty, but we didn’t see anything frightening or of operational concern. After they flew by hand for a few minutes, they were back in shape, just like riding a bike.”

 

What was of concern, however, was the atrophy in cognitive abilities. “When we started looking at situational awareness tools, that is where the problems were.” In particular, the Ames group determined that retention of the cognitive skills needed to manually fly the aircraft in a degraded flight mode—for instance visualizing the position of the aircraft without the aid of a navigation display—could depend on the degree to which pilots remain actively engaged in supervising the automation.

 

In other words, hand-flying was OK and automation wasn't a problem as long as pilots were working with it actively.  It's when they were letting it run in the  background, so to speak, then had to re-engage with it suddenly under difficult circumstances that the problems came in.

 

The results suggest that the debate about hand-flying vs. the "magenta line" may be missing some detail and nuance.

 

Here's a link to a report about an earlier Ames study by the same researchers that makes similar points.

 

The AW&ST article is worth tracking down and reading in full if you're interested in this subject.