Well I'm at work and it's lunchtime and I found myself looking through AVSIM to see what the latest was in the PMDG world and I found this, it struck a chord and I thought I'd reply.

 

I think relying on automation is something I'm definitely guilty of to some extent, like I imagine real pilots are as well in the real world.  Generally I prefer long haul flights where I set them up, plan the route, take off climb to cruise and come back later on to land the thing.  For this I tend to use PFPX for planning, Navigraph and in flight the PMDG Cruise functions for the T7 (mainly operate the 777-300ER).

 

To spice things up I generally have a closer look at the airports I'm going to, sometimes listen to live ATC at those locations and get a feel for what 'really happens' at those locations in terms of routing.  Some airports have a lot of holding, Heathrow for example.  Some airfields despite vast numbers of STARS and approach plates end up with aicraft being vectored after a certain point anyway etc... etc... I tend to try to use this knowledge (whether accurate or not) and since I don't fly online in VATSIM, almost 'pretend' I have ATC.... Coming in to Heathrow I usually do an initial hold some what out.. and then probably continue the STAR and again hold a bit before being vectored out over Reading to come in to 09L/R.  It ads a bit more fun and makes you use the aircraft systems a little more.

 

I have some other things happen (probably more annoying than anything) where I have to deal with BRAKE TEMP EICAS messages.  My rudder pedals are old and sometimes stick a little, this has happened a few times, means again following ATC 'instructions' to a hold somewhere to cool them off before coming back in.

 

Departures I am often faster, imagining I've been cleared for higher speed due to weight, I am not a fan of sitting there just above flap retract speed on SIDs till 10k, much prefer to get a shift on and be well clear.

 

Another fun one is to be coming into Manchester (EGCC, it has two close parallel runways) and pretending to be asked to switch runways from say 24R to 24L fairly last minute.  Sometimes I can do it in the time and distance safely.. other times it's a go around.. which means flying off holding and coming back in.

 

I might point out some of these are my own ideas.. some are caused by 'equipment malfunctions' in my controls, others I've got from training DVDs or real life aviation DVDs.

 

Another example which I think is quite fun.. coming into Gatwick/EGKK  (yes I'm UK centric, I live near LHR/EGLL) I will sometimes imagine once established that I'm asked to perhaps turn out right.. and then back in again to give a little more spacing on the approach.  I think I saw this on an Oasis Hong Kong DVD actually where they were asked to do it.

 

Another thing, since the accident at LHR the T7, CDA's can require some 'handling' where you wind up those engines from time to time to make sure their fuel systems are clear.  That can be quite fun to do on approach.

 

For some of this stuff it's a case of using automatics and knowing your way around using what the A/C has available, for others it's a case of manual hand flying.  There are times where the autopilot needs that human touch that it just doesn't have and it struggles a little to cope with the situation.  Sure it can fly the plane ok but it might not do it quite how you really want it to.  On the 744 I prefer to land with complete manual control including throttle, and I've got quite used to that, I know that the T7 is a somewhat different animal and even most 'manual' landings still use autothrottle etc.

 

To be honest for me one of the biggest challenges, and something I just didn't expect when I first got it, is slowing the T7 down!  She LOVES speed, I've got quite good at using flaps and gear extending to get the speed to come down at a sensible pace and in time for a nice safe landing.

 

There is a lot of things you can do to make your experience seem more 'realistic' hand flying, flying things that aren't necessarily standard but quite common.  Flying diversions, etc.  After watching Nick's video I'm trying to be more 'visual' with my flying generally, relying more on PAPI etc when I can and visual cues than basically fixated with the PFD and ND all the time.

 

Anyway just my contribution!

 

Cheers

Craig Read (I think my name is in my login name anyway? )

Hi Craig,

Your post was certainly a good read. Thanks.

 

I am unsure why you threw away with the statement "and since I don't fly on VATSIM, almost pretend I have ATC...". I always fly online to VATSIM partly because you have to cope with unplanned ATC situations, some of which you address in your text.

 

Are you unable to access VATSIM for some reason?

 

Looking forward to your reply,

To quote and old aviation cliché: "Truly superior pilots are those who use their superior judgement to avoid those situations where they might have to use their superior skills..."

 

The demands made on commercial pilots, particularly those flying passenger jets, have changed significantly in many ways during the past 20 years. However, many operational aspects of the job and the skills/mindset required to do it well have not. I listen with interest when I hear people blaming the proliferation of automated systems for a deterioration in basic flying skills and nearly always find myself disagreeing with the simplicity of the statement.

 

Good and thorough training is of course a bedrock of eventual pilot competence but equally, so is mindset. It might be said that there is a fundamental conflict between the mindset and character that the job demands compared to that which it attracts. I have worked with many pilots over the years - some of whom exhibit a real flair for procedural competence but lack 'seat of the pants' skills and visa-versa. By 'seat of the pants' I don't mean show-offs, I mean people who have a natural affinity with aircraft and the composite engineering as a whole and who have plenty of natural capacity to operate an aircraft both physically and procedurally simultaneously. It is widely accepted that a good airline pilot is a 'stable introvert' personality type, however, there is a slight irony in the fact that the nature of the industry happens more often than not to attract quite the opposite!

 

It has been interesting for me to watch an increasing demand for cockpit automation and gadgets simultaneously in both the real world and that of home simulation. As technically fascinated people, the allure of ever more complicated and impressive technology is difficult to resist, which I think is fine, provided new technology is regarded within the context in which it most effective. Automation and gadgets must always be considered as tools to enhance the overall effectiveness of the job in hand, and not as a replacement for anything.

 

For example, I once had to terminate an aerobatic display practice during perfect weather conditions when the pilot of an SR22 flew directly into our box (which was subject to a 5 day NOTAM) and despite being advised by a radar controller 10 minutes previous to the incident. The point was that despite being a gin clear day, and my aircraft being nicely silhouetted against a clear blue sky, he decided to look for me on his TCAS rather than looking out of his cockpit. I saw him miles away and watched with interest (despite being in the middle of a sequence) as he grew ever closer, and informing the ATC unit on several occasions that he hadn't yet got me in sight. No prizes for guessing why I didn't show a return on his beloved TCAS! And so I knocked it off. It's not the fault of the technology. Indeed, in different circumstances and used properly it is a massive aid to spacial awareness and safety. His mis-use of it on this occasion was highly detrimental to flight safety.

 

Automation and gadgetry are tools - no different from any other element of the aircraft and it's equipment. A good pilot will make the most effective use of the most appropriate tools to get the job done safely. The notion that automation or/and gadgets are there to replace a task or to make life easier is a misplaced one and in some cases has proven to be dangerous. A pilot's misunderstanding of this concept has been an increasing training challenge of late and one which the industry has not always responded to particularly effectively.

 

Basic flight training regimes have shown a fair degree of 'mission creep' in recent years. This may be because aircraft have become better designed and easier to fly (note: being easy to fly and flying it well are two completely differing concepts). Another issue is that as cockpit of aircraft both large and small have become increasingly populated with navigational automated support, some of the training emphasis which once focussed on sound handling of a simpler aircraft, has inadvertently shifted towards deeper understanding of the systems. However, no level of familiarity will sweeten the pill if you fly into the ground whist doing something very clever with it.

 

Aircraft large and small will continue to evolve as will their systems. What won't change though is what the job requires from an individual. The cockpit may change and some things will get harder and some easier. What you replace with automation on one hand, you add to in terms of the need to fully understand a system. It's all give and take. What won't ever change is the ability of a good pilot to understand their environment in its entirety and to master all of the tools available to them. This is as true for light aircraft/recreational pilots as it is for commercial large or medium sized aircraft pilots. Both judgement and skills are needed in equal measure. Good judgement won't always prevent you from requiring goods skills because there is always the chance that something unforeseen or unpreventable will happen. However, good judgement should be considered as a prerequisite skill in itself and not a replacement for it.

 

That means knowing what you need to know and practising what you need to practice and most of all, doing it objectively and with balance. 

 

Luke

These days, my GPS with satellite weather, would most likely show the dimensions of the NOTAM airspace, as well as the description. Since I don't win anything, I suppose it's no transponder to interrogate by someones radar. Which of course, is legal in an aerobatic airplane without an electrical system. I shared a hangar with a Pitts M-12 radial, with the same "none" electrical.  If I'm wrong about anything, it's going on four years now without flying. I'll be getting behind, when it comes to the latest in avionics.