Just to remain focus let's push a little bit on the throtle: it sad to say but the aircraft without pilot are already flying. They simply call drone. They are used now by the military force (programme was initiated by the Bush Administration, it has increased under Obama and there have been 41 known drone strikes in Pakistan since Obama became President.) Of course now they are military use but, in the future what do you aspect? Many of the military project became civilian use.

So the future belongs to MATRIX?

 

 

I'm hoping the rant about the mention of the video wasn't aimed at me. I think it's pretty clear that my post made light of various levels of automation and that, occasionally, punching them all off in favor of "switching to guns," if you will, is the ideal solution.

 

Not at all, and if it came across that way I apologise. Wasn't intended to to aimed at anybody in particular -- just my own personal rant!

 

 

Sadly the days of pilots learning "stick and rudder" before going to automation are long gone. I do recall in the 80's, the "thing" to do was to go to a God-foresaken part of the world and get your hours. Airlines would only look at you if you had command time in places like PNG, Vietnam, etc. real flying.
 
I spent some time in the British Aerospace college in Australia and saw students going from Ab-Initio to ATPL in just over a year, and then making the jump from a Seneca to the right hand seat in an A320.....scary.

 

How so?

 

Certainly in this part of the world, airlines have been training ab-initio cadets for decades. I'm yet to see an accident caused by a 200hr ab-initio cadet, or a report listing PF's inability to hand-fly inverted through the eye of a needle on a dark stormy night in Africa as a contributory factor. I do see plenty of accidents caused by pilots of all levels of experience failing to follow procedures or busting minima. Is X thousand hours buzzing single-pilot around Maun/PNG/wherever, where pilots and travellers may accept a slightly higher level of risk in all manner of things, really the most relevant experience for flying highly automated, multi-crew modern airliners?

 

CRM is about using all the available resources to come to the best possible outcome. That includes the automation, the bloke/lady in the other seat(s), ground crew, cabin crew, ATC, company communications and much more. How much experience of each of those things do you get on your own in the bush?

 

 

 

This notion of the lack of autopilot use making things more dangerous needs to go away. The use of the autopilot is required in certain conditions (RVSM airspace being one of them), and can help to reduce the crew workload in important situations, but apart from that, it's perfectly fine to fly by hand.

 

Absolutely, though I would stress (as I'm sure you already know) that there are threats associated with hand-flying -- just as there are threats associated with using the automation. A good crew will identify and brief the threats relevant to the situation and take pro-active steps to mitigate them. The problems arise when crews fail to do this: whether it's flicking on the autopilot and mentally putting their feet up because 'George' has it, or PM dialling the wrong altitude in to the MCP in response to an ATC clearance which PF misses because he's focussed on hand-flying.

 

 

 

So, some additional stuff to think about...

 

Definitely -- an interesting paper which I shall read fully later!

 

 

I do see plenty of accidents caused by pilots of all levels of experience failing to follow procedures or busting minima

 

How about the Air Florida Flight 90 B732  on january 13 1982, where 70 from 74 pass. died? The captain has at the time of the accident,  approximately 8,300 total flight hours, with 2,322 hours of commercial jet experience (all logged at Air Florida). He had logged 1,752 hours on the Boeing 737, the accident aircraft type, with 1,100 of those hours as captain, and the SO was hired by Air Florida on October 3, 1980, as a first officer on the Boeing 737. At the time of the accident, he had approximately 3,353 total flight hours, with 992 accumulated at Air Florida, all on the 737. From October 1977 to October 1980, he had been a fighter pilot in the United States Air Force, accumulating 669 flight hours as a flight examiner, instructor pilot and ground instructor in an operational F-15 unit.

"The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the cause of the accident was pilot error. The pilots failed to switch on the engines' internal ice protection systems, used reverse thrust in a snowstorm prior to takeoff, and failed to abort the takeoff even after detecting a power problem while taxiing and visually identifying ice and snow buildup on the wings." (wiki)

And this is just one off a long list of pilot errors unfortunally. :(

 

 

Utilizing this feature for the VHHH-OMDB leg, I got a route that did not deviate too far from the Great Circle direct routing, while still remaining on the airways. Trusting that it was giving me the best wind route it could, I had it compute the flight. The charts on the release showed the route was more into the wind than I would've preferred, especially given the fact that the wind was much calmer to the south. Seeing this, I went over to SkyVector (its map pans/draws a little faster than PFPX simply because it doesn't have all of the extra features), selected the World HI charts, turned on the wind barbs, and dragged the magenta line across a route south of the computed route and into calmer wind. After getting the route to where I was satisfied with it, I moved it into PFPX (manually typed the airways/points in - you're not missing any automation, don't worry).

 

I've viewed most of your videos. I believe you have a done a handful of PFPX vids (or ones involving PFPX). I would suggest a SYSK video on this topic.

 

Like a few other posters mentioned, there really aren't any good resources for international flight plans. Flightaware falls way short. For example, it typically only has 3/4 or half of the flightplan. And one of the cities must be in the U.S. (Not an iron clad rule, just something I've noticed). 

 

I have read the PFPX manual regarding Build / Custom routes, but still haven't managed to figure it out. And regarding automation with the 777 - I really should. Your post is spot on: with so much automation, I've found that detailed flightplanning versus just plug n chug has really helped me learn more about the 777. 

 

 

Not at all, and if it came across that way I apologise. Wasn't intended to to aimed at anybody in particular -- just my own personal rant!

 

Figured. Just wanted to make sure. Pretty sure I'd just gotten an attempted "stump-the-chump" by someone on my YouTube channel (and the guy was just flat out wrong with all of his assertions) right before I saw your post, so I was still a little on the defensive.

 

 

 

And this is just one off a long list of pilot errors unfortunally.

 

Not sure why you're referring to the Air Florida crash here. That had nothing to do with the autopilot, and a lot to do with crew error. They did a lot of things that crews without a lot of experience in freezing weather probably wouldn't think twice about. Sure, they were hand flying, and your earlier point was that "you should hand fly as little as possible" (again, this is false), but the crash happened pretty much immediately after takeoff.

 

You can see how close/low the plane still was to the airport here (the approximate point of impact is the red marker): https://www.google.com/maps/place/38%C2%B052'34.0%22N+77%C2%B002'31.3%22W/@38.8671291,-77.0369116,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

 

 

 

I've viewed most of your videos. I believe you have a done a handful of PFPX vids (or ones involving PFPX). I would suggest a SYSK video on this topic.
 
Like a few other posters mentioned, there really aren't any good resources for international flight plans. Flightaware falls way short. For example, it typically only has 3/4 or half of the flightplan. And one of the cities must be in the U.S. (Not an iron clad rule, just something I've noticed). 
 
I have read the PFPX manual regarding Build / Custom routes, but still haven't managed to figure it out. And regarding automation with the 777 - I really should. Your post is spot on: with so much automation, I've found that detailed flightplanning versus just plug n chug has really helped me learn more about the 777. 

 

That's a good idea. Since my new day job is back in aviation, I'll have much more time to make the videos and it'll even be work related for the most part.

I thought I was the only one who plans my flight

 

 

Not sure why you're referring to the Air Florida crash here. That had nothing to do with the autopilot, and a lot to do with crew error. They did a lot of things that crews without a lot of experience in freezing weather probably wouldn't think twice about. Sure, they were hand flying, and your earlier point was that "you should hand fly as little as possible" (again, this is false), but the crash happened pretty much immediately after takeoff.



You can see how close/low the plane still was to the airport here (the approximate point of impact is the red marker):

Just making a remark that even the most experienced pilots sometimes could make stupid errors. And unfortunally this errors are payed in people lifes wich die in the planes crashes. It's hard for me to admit but, personally I try to take the plane less possible nowdays, because even if I have this pasion (or hobby) for flying, I really don't trust anymore in today's pilots (nothing personally with people that here are real aviaton pilots, and with all respect for they're job). I think that today is really a big problem for aviaton in general talking, because from maintainence at the groud, to security in flight, and pilots that are more and more stressed with less hours for resting, it may allways be a chance that something could go wrong.

Again, with all respect for you guys.

I thought I was the only one who plans my flight

I enjoy the flight planning for long range flights into new (for me) parts of the world.  I still remember my EHAM-VTBS Amsterdam-Bangkok KLH flight in the B77L, an actual route that I took the liberty offered by simulation to overfly the top of the world, something KLH flights will generally not do.  I used Wikipedia as I flew along to read about the countries I was overflying that I'd never hear of.  That was before the incident over Ukraine, so a reroute today would be in order.  Same for the KATL-OMDB flights, the GC route will take you over less than friendly territories so routing is even more interesting.

Just making a remark that even the most experienced pilots sometimes could make stupid errors. And unfortunally this errors are payed in people lifes wich die in the planes crashes. It's hard for me to admit but, personally I try to take the plane less possible nowdays, because even if I have this pasion (or hobby) for flying, I really don't trust anymore in today's pilots (nothing personally with people that here are real aviaton pilots, and with all respect for they're job). I think that today is really a big problem for aviaton in general talking, because from maintainence at the groud, to security in flight, and pilots that are more and more stressed with less hours for resting, it may allways be a chance that something could go wrong.

Again, with all respect for you guys.

 

Removing the one factor that can make the difference between disaster and safety where computers cannot go isn't going to help things either. Auto-pilot, auto-land, auto-takeoff, auto-taxi, auto-flight attendant.......and auto crash when something goes so wrong that the computer cant make the right decision that the human mind can. A cascade of bad decisions by a human being still has a small hope of being reversed until one gets into that square corner. But when a computer glitch occurs that locks the human mind out of interfering and does something wrong, hope effectively becomes 0 unless there is another way to lock the computer out and restore control to the pilot.

 

All said and done, the human mind most certainly can make mistakes. But it can also recover from mistakes. That's something a computer cannot do. Especially when that mistake is hardwired in by the mind that programmed it. Computers are not infallible. They are as prone as the mind behind them to error.

I rarely write here, but I will do an exception today . I have been thinking about these automated things many times. It started many years ago when I flew to Soviet. I think that pilot used to be a military pilot. Pilots with that background are often the best pilots. When arriving to TOD of UUEE, he must have flown manually all the way down. Normally you feel when they start to descend, but not in this case. I didn't feel anything. Only indication of descend was by looking at the altitude at the monitor. He didn't touch the throttles at all until he used reversers. The plane was very stable during the entire approach. I am not a pilot or similar, but I have been flying a lot in my life. I have never met a more skilled pilot than that pilot.

 

And that have inspired me when I fly 747 and 777 in simulator. I am almost always trying to fly entire approach manually. Some airport are easier than others (Some approaches to EHAM can be challenging).

 

Now I am living in China, and pilots here don't concern very much about passengers comfort. When they land a 737 at Beijing, they hit the reverser so hard, so it's almost like hitting into a wall. Even KLM 747 don't use reversers as much when they land on the same runway. I bet they have an internal competition: Who can use the shortest runway when they land. But I hope I will meet a skilled pilot someday again like that Aeroflot pilot. 

 

 

Now I am living in China, and pilots here don't concern very much about passengers comfort. When they land a 737 at Beijing, they hit the reverser so hard, so it's almost like hitting into a wall. Even KLM 747 don't use reversers as much when they land on the same runway. I bet they have an internal competition: Who can use the shortest runway when they land. But I hope I will meet a skilled pilot someday again like that Aeroflot pilot. 

 

To be honest, a lot of flying over there is rote. If you ask any one of them a question, their answer is usually "because the manual/captain/company said so." I'm sure one can find some good pilots over there, but to be honest, I really didn't come across many when I worked at a flight school contracted to train for a lot of their airlines.

 

I really wouldn't be too surprised if there's some procedure for them to use a high level of autobrake for all runways, just to remove the judgment call by the crew, and maintain uniformity. Seriously. When I worked at the flight school, we had a list of possible destinations for each one of their stage checks. We were supposed to randomize it so that they didn't copy each other's flight planning. If you search around, you'll find that there's actually a lot of discussion in the industry on the topic. The discussion, of course, was emphasized after the crash of the Asiana 777 at SFO.

To be honest, a lot of flying over there is rote. If you ask any one of them a question, their answer is usually "because the manual/captain/company said so." I'm sure one can find some good pilots over there, but to be honest, I really didn't come across many when I worked at a flight school contracted to train for a lot of their airlines.

 

I really wouldn't be too surprised if there's some procedure for them to use a high level of autobrake for all runways, just to remove the judgment call by the crew, and maintain uniformity. Seriously. When I worked at the flight school, we had a list of possible destinations for each one of their stage checks. We were supposed to randomize it so that they didn't copy each other's flight planning. If you search around, you'll find that there's actually a lot of discussion in the industry on the topic. The discussion, of course, was emphasized after the crash of the Asiana 777 at SFO.

Yes, things work little different in China, sometimes it's good, sometimes bad. Chain of comand is very important. An employee must do as the boss say, no matter how stupid or strange order it is. As you wrote, SFO incident was such an example. That leads to low level of innovation from the workers. But there are many, complex, things that makes people like that. People here are not interested in that .

 

 

"because the manual/captain/company said so."

 

That could have been heard from Pan American FO's up until they had lost so many B707's that the old "Skygods" were finally removed or retrained.  That episode contributed to the crew resource management philosophies of today I believe.  Perhaps every segment of the industry has to go through that unfortunately.

@hasse29
 

 

Pilots with that background are often the best pilots.

i don't agree with that.
a good pilot is the one that can comeover emergency situations and make the flight SAFE again.
in my airline(Iran Air),there are many former-military pilots;as i was TRI/TRE on 727 many years ago and now on A320,i've seen many of them;let me tell you that "OFTEN,they're not good pilots",for what reason?:see the aircrash investigations and their human factors.with all respect,most of Fatal human errors that led to a crash were made by military pilots.Why again?:go read the reports,you'll see whY(if i was gonna say the last questions answer,that would be a very LONG comment which will frustrate you more,so i'm just referring to somewhere that would lead you to an answer)
[one reason is the TIME that you takeover the machine/computers on the aircraft ,which is very important on safety factors in case of any incident that may lead to and accident or probably a crash]
Hope i have helped.

Best Regards,

 

 

What I am curious about is, how do RW pilots actually fly these days? Do they maintain proficiency by doing a lot of manual flying, or are they rather afraid of making mistakes, which then can be tracked back via flight data recordings, noise measurement devices and the like?

 

Simulators.  Especially international long haul pilots don't get enough take offs and landings to maintain good proficiency.  United almost learned the hard way about 12 - 15 years ago when a 744 had an engine flame out right after takeoff from SFO.  Pilot tried to correct with roll, not rudders, and since the plane uses spoilers a lot at low speeds to facilitate turns, the plane nearly stalled and was in real danger of flying into San Bruno mountain, the hill just north of the field.   This story was shared by the chief check pilot for the 777 in the United Fleet when I got to fly the 777 simulator at the Denver Avsim conference.  United then realized it needed to bring these long haul pilots back in for more repetitions of take off and landing - and failures in these most dangerous phases of flight.