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

[G550flyer 1,014]

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.

That was the point in my posts, hand flying has never been an issue. All of my years giving Air force flight evals, I never hooked a guy/gal due to hand flying of the aircraft. There were pilots who were a little rusty on crosswind controls and would land a little off center but they were never at risk of killing us. The guys I hooked were taken out because of improper procedure, judgement or would have exceeded a limitation had I not intervened.  It was always the mis management of automation that got pilots in trouble. When flying with new pilots, I all ways ask them a specific question when I notice they are straying from procedure or not keeping up with the automation. Some of my favorites and answers are 1. How long before we should query the controller if he doesn't give us a descent? "ahh, yeah we should probably start pinging him now" 2. Hows our descent going? "lets see, .80 mach, about 8 miles a minute, 17 hundred umm I think i'll use some boards and a little more vert" 3. Is that what you really wanted in the box(FMS)? "darn, how did that happen?" 4. Ok, got you at 11,000 and 30 miles from the field. "ahhh yep, ahh could you ask for lower? 5. I notice you have a different MDA than mine "ahh yeah, i did brief a DDA didn't I?" Just checking, I'll set the threshold elevation for your HUD too.

 

It's easy to get channelized or behind and drop something out of the scan. That's why I loved having a flight engineer. Was all ways nice having that extra set of eyes cross backing us up. 

Edited October 21, 2014 by n4gix
Removed excessive quote.

[vololiberista 205]

 

 

It's easy to get channelized or behind and drop something out of the scan. That's why I loved having a flight engineer. Was all ways nice having that extra set of eyes cross backing us up. 

You should see the flight manuel for the VC10 in the days of BOAC. Cross checking between the pilots and EO were continous. And in fact on that a/c the EO had his own throttles which considerable reduced the pilots workload.

[Pe11e 812]

For me, watching the autopilot capturing the localizer and lining up on the ILS, is 18+ material, honestly. There is something really really sexy about ILS and watching the plane entering the ils feather and lining up at the final while I take a deep breath, disconnect the autopilot and take control at 1000 feet or more, depends on weather.

[Guest]

I simply do whatever I like.

 

The last few years I've been mainly flying GA. Sometimes I use the AP and sometimes I don't, just depending on my mood. Sometimes I fly VOR to VOR and using triangulation and sometimes I follow the line on the GPS. Sometimes I fly for an hour with no AP and sometimes I fly for 15 minutes with AP. My favorite GA plane right now is the A2A Cherokee: since it has a different kind of AP, I have to handfly a lot more in it (climb and descent) and I love it. 

 

Since the release of the Aerosoft Airbus 318 I've only been flying that plane and I am using the AP from start to finish: it goes on at accel alt and it goes off AFTER landing because I am an autoland lover: just as Pe11e posted, I really LOVE seeing the Airbus doing everything 'by itself' (it's sexy indeed!  ) because that proves I have pushed the right buttons at the right time. But instead of turning the AP off like he does, I keep it on until the very end. I really get a kick out of an autoland and I actually hate landing it manually. For me the fun of the Airbus isn't hand flying but pushing and pulling the right knobs, setting the MCDU the right way, etc. etc. and seeing everything go well all by itself! I LOVE that! I only land on runways where there is an ILS and I don't care about which CAT it is: since life is perfect in P3D and the Aerosoft Airbus, I autoland all over the place! I am really hooked on this and can't wait to get home after a hard day's work to get my fix LOL

 

I can imagine someone not seeing the fun in this, but I couldn't care less. After all, I am not flying on the PC to please someone else! And as long as I love what I am doing, I will keep on doing it. There are more than enough area's in life where I can't do whatever I want and I certainly won't give up on the right to enjoy myself in my own P3D world in my own way.  ^_^

 

And btw it's indeed odd that in simming land it is often frowned upon to use the AP extensively. The OP may say he isn't knocking anyone, but well, seriously, I have never seen a topic start with the question "Why the heck do so many people turn off the AP and hand fly while you can autoland?" This topic is ALWAYS opened by someone who does handfly... and that says something.  B)

[Pe11e 812]

As much as I love ILS aproaches as much as I hate autolandings. I mean 2 minutes after takeoff and 2 minutes before landings are the only moments when I can actually fly the airplane and feel it. When I fly GA I tend to avoid turning on the AP, ofcourse, unless the flight is longer than one hour.

[vololiberista 205]

Here's one landing that is most definately not a manual approach!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g185mUtaiSU

[rjack1282 316]

 

 

It would be interesting if 1 out of 10 approaches (in sim) were visual approaches flown by hand. Flying a visual approach is a real world challenge for real world pilots as landing systems do go out or are put out of service for maintenance. Only in the sim world are the ILS and other landing aids 'unrealistically' always available.

 

I often get a visual approach from the controllers on Pilotedge and it adds a lot of realism to my sim experience. It's great not knowing which approach to expect in clear weather when I am passed over to the approach controller. This past Sunday I was flying into ksfo and was told to expect the visual approach which is usually radar vectors until I see the airport. I continued my approach and then the controller asked to report either the field in sight or one of the bridges. At this point I am scrambling for charts to find the names of the bridges while the controller is vectoring me and telling me to descend, etc..  The workload is pretty high at this point. I see a short bridge and a long bridge and guess that the long bridge is the San Matteo bridge. The controller then gives me the Tipp Toe visual to runway 28L. I am thinking to myself...what??? Again, I am scrambling to find the approach plate to fly the approach (a RW pilot would have either had experience or known there are published visuals into ksfo....I didn't).  I ended up coming in high and fast but got her down safely. The previous visuals I had flown were all vectors until visual with the airport, some lined up on final some requiring an entrance to the pattern. 

 

My point to all this is that these tubeliners are made for at least two pilots. When the cockpit workload is high, the AP acts as my second pilot while I brief approaches and configure the aircraft for landing. When I fly GA, I am usually just told to enter the pattern at a specific point and land, the workload is much less and AP not required. So for me it just depends on the cockpit workload. 

 

Ryan

[toriu 7]

I like to use airliners as realistically as possible in FSX, so I use the auto pilot at appropriate times. Interesting video, thanks for posting.

[Airline2Sim 489]

I think the main reason for a lot of autopilot use is simply that the heavier metal (Q400 and up) was designed from the outset to be operated primarily via the autopilot and indeed many airlines advocate use of it to reduce pilot workload and therefore increase safety margins. This is what happens in the real thing so simmers follow suit, especially as the workload for a single pilot is insanely high if you're trying to do it properly. Remember in FSX you're doing the job of two people.

 

Leaving aside the age old 'children of the magenta line' adage, the other issue is that a desktop PC is absolutely awful at replicating the true sense of flight, especially in a big jet. We have several real pilots on our team and to a man they are all laughably bad at hand flying their real world aircraft inside FSX as it just feels totally different. Yes the really well set up aircraft have the right deck angles and pitch attitude and fuel

flows etc but there the similarity ends. They have all said that the real things are MUCH easier to fly than in FSX. I personally prefer to let George fly from accel alt down to throwing out the landing flap and savour doing it all properly and most of all, accurately. This is as far as the big stuff goes of course. It's a different story in the A2A Cherokee!

[Mickeyj 35]

 

 

FSX you're doing the job of two people.

 

In normal ops. No multiple avionics failures in bad weather. No flight attendants dealing with some p*** off passengers who wants to know if they can catch their connecting  flights. 

 

 

Leaving aside the age old 'children of the magenta line' adage, the other issue is that a desktop PC is absolutely awful at replicating the true sense of flight, especially in a big jet. We have several real pilots on our team and to a man they are all laughably bad at hand flying their real world aircraft inside FSX as it just feels totally different.

 

Even the full flight sim have the same crapy behaviour. I flew the CRJ sims and noe Embraer sims both feel totally differnet to the real world planes.

 

And what should also be mentioned FSX/P3D2 are all about flying and learning procedures. In the sim we fly the heavies in the real world with >4 crew members you operate the prop/jet airliner. Flying is placed somewhere in the third row. Stick time (hand flying) on one leg something around 5-7 minutes.

[michal 44]

 

 

They have all said that the real things are MUCH easier to fly than in FSX.

I would strongly dispute that, from my own experience.

First of all such statement may be true for someone who already is a real pilot not for a simmer

who has never piloted anything for real.

I recall a big learning curve when as a 'confident' simmer decided to go for the real thing - there is so much additional

stuff you have to deal with when flying for real that simming simply doesn't even come close in replicating real conditions.

I was actually so taken aback by disparity between the real thing and simulation that I dropped simming altogether,

I know only use a G1000 trainer on my PC to stay sharp on G1000 'buttology', I find little use in FSX, X-Plane, etc in

helping me with real life flying skills.

[Airline2Sim 489]

I would strongly dispute that, from my own experience.

First of all such statement may be true for someone who already is a real pilot not for a simmer who has never piloted anything for real.

 

I would also point out that I've flown a bunch of full sized 737 sims and by the easiest to fly with any accuracy was BA's Level D 737-400 sim based at Cranebank near Heathrow Airport. The 'home made' sims using FSX for visuals lack anything like the same fidelity.  

[michal 44]

Bottom line - having never flown before and having gained plenty of PC- desktop sim experience you are somewhat acquainted with airplanes/avionics, etc. but you are nowhere ready to fly the real thing, it does give you some jump start but learning curve will still be steep. When you make transition in the opposite direction - from real thing to PC sim you may find simming 'difficult' because the whole set-up is weird and something you aren't used to.

[glenecho3 9]

Are you really interested in an answer or...is it just a bash-fest?

 

My truthful answer...because it's FUN.

[tttocs 301]

Bottom line - having never flown before and having gained plenty of PC- desktop sim experience you are somewhat acquainted with airplanes/avionics, etc. but you are nowhere ready to fly the real thing, it does give you some jump start but learning curve will still be steep.

 

I think the discrepency in opinions here depend on what you mean by "flying".  Frankly, I agree with the idea that a sim is intuitively more difficult to hand fly than the real thing is, simply because it is missing the mechanical cues needed to provide control feedback.  When I did instrument training, I hated my sim sessions because of the lack of feedback in the sims (FAA approved and logged as instruction time) we flew.

 

That said, I also agree with your position as flying - in the broader and more encompassing sense - is more difficult and more involved when it's for real.  I may have sweated doing partial panel in the sim, but I SWEATED doing partial panel under the hood in the plane in the more cramped, loud and chaotic moving world of the real thing.

 

Scott