5 hours ago, martin-w said:

There have been some. Not many, not a huge number. So a very minimal sample size that doesn't really favour definitive conclusions. Most of those accidents I recall were with emergency situations.

The issue in this accidents was that the pilot error occurred when the pilots took over manually to respond to the emergency/abnormal situation but were not able to do so correctly which they absolutely should have been. Take AF447 as an example. Upon automatic A/P disengagement due to erroneous data being fed to the computer by the frozen pitot tubes the response would be to fly pitch and power. However, that was never done and instead the F/O (I think it was the F/O) pulled back so long that he got the aircraft from stable flight into a stall. Once in the stall, they never performed proper stall recovery either. At that point it was about taking matters into their own hands and fly manually but there was a complete lack of manual flying proficiency.

You're right about the minimal sample size, but if more accidents happen that show a lack of manual flying skills in an age where aircraft get more and more automated and pilots use it more often the concern is quite apparent. If you follow the industry closely you'll see this is a concern which is becoming more prominent.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Which the pilot is trained to fly and has probably flown many times, thus is highly practised. So special "old time no automation skill" or simply training and practice?

Keep in mind this is not a published approach but rather a highly unusual and likely improvised procedure which is very different from the actual published missed approach procedure. This video is all I could find with regard to this maneuver being flown in Mogadishu, so I doubt this is anywhere near normal or even practiced.

More automation comes at a cost: Less manual work. It's all about practice and daily exposure, so, I would say it's both, old time no automation skill and training and practice. I think we're pretty much making the same point.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Really? Well firstly, automation has saved countless lives, way more than "less manual flying" has caused loss of life. Furthermore, an approach like this is way easier in a fly by wire airbus than a 727. There are a multitude of flight envelope protections to keep pilot and passengers safe when hand flying. Again... give the modern pilot in any aircraft he is trained to fly, the same training to fly a difficult approach, the same amount of practice, and there is no evidence you are less safe as a passenger.

There is no doubt automation is making flying safer. I think you slightly misunderstood what I was going at. I wasn't (and I think other posters here weren't either) saying that pilots today are naturally worse pilots, but that they are way more used to having automation as a substantial aid in commanding an aircraft. This tends to let manual flying skills start to rust when you rely on it a lot and when it comes to an abnormal situation that requires profound manual flying or to something rather unconventional like in the video it's likely you won't be performing as well as you did if you had to do a lot more manual flying on a daily basis.

If you train a pilot on a 727 in 2020 there's no reason to say they won't be doing as well as any 727 pilot in the 60s. The point is that your manual flying skills depend not only on your initial flight training but also on how often you use them and even the best pilot will get complacent when they reduce the amount of manual flight considerably, which is what happens when you compare a 727 pilot to an A320 pilot, e.g. So, yes, the 727 pilot will likely perform better.

5 hours ago, martin-w said:

Not to the extent you suggest. They often don't do that you know. In order to remain practised at hand flying.

As far as I can make out by following the industry, the emphasis on maintaining manual flying skills is most prominent in the US, but even there the debate about deteriorating manual flying skills is more popular than ever. This concern is not coming out of nowhere.

Edited March 28, 20206 yr by threegreen

13 hours ago, threegreen said:

The issue in this accidents was that the pilot error occurred when the pilots took over manually to respond to the emergency/abnormal situation but were not able to do so correctly which they absolutely should have been. 

 

Precisely, that was what I already said. Which is not the same as the video. The video is an entirely different scenario. The video, is a pilot disconnecting the automation, deliberately, and flying a manual approach. That is a way different scenario than an emergency situation where the pilot suddenly finds himself  facing a rapid requirement for manual flying. 

 

Quote

If you follow the industry closely you'll see this is a concern which is becoming more prominent.

 

I know it is, namely a sudden requirement for manual control, as you highlighted and as I have mention a number of times. Not a deliberate, controlled, practised, hand flown procedure as per the video. 

 

Quote

Keep in mind this is not a published approach but rather a highly unusual and likely improvised procedure which is very different from the actual published missed approach procedure. This video is all I could find with regard to this maneuver being flown in Mogadishu, so I doubt this is anywhere near normal or even practiced.

 

The approach chart has already been posted here. The only difference I see, is the comment by some here that the altitude was lower. Improvised or not (probably not) the pilot engaged in a deliberate activity, nothing like the scenarios that are known to be off concern re automation. 

 

Quote

There is no doubt automation is making flying safer. I think you slightly misunderstood what I was going at. I wasn't (and I think other posters here weren't either) saying that pilots today are naturally worse pilots, but that they are way more used to having automation as a substantial aid in commanding an aircraft. 

 

I understood exactly what you were saying. And by definition, if they are less capable of handling manual frying they are worse pilots in that respect. 

 

Quote

This tends to let manual flying skills start to rust when you rely on it a lot and when it comes to an abnormal situation

 

Again... I have already stated that abnormal situations, emergency situations, and the sudden requirement for hand flying, has, on occasion, been lacking. And that's its a current debate. And again... the video was not an abnormal, emergency situation. It was a premeditated, deliberate choice to hand fly the approach. 

 

Quote

As far as I can make out by following the industry, the emphasis on maintaining manual flying skills is most prominent in the US

 

Not really. Its done in Europe too. 

 

It's absolutely clear that we have differing opinions. You have stated your opinion and I have stated mine. And we are now seeing points I have already made, repeated by you. So we will leave it at that. 🙂

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by martin-w

I think it's not even open to debate that an airliner pilot doing say 100 hr/yr of manual flying, is (with a high probability) more good at manual flight than a pilot doing (for airline procedures or whatever else) less than say 1 hr/yr of effective manual flight.

Some of the airline procedures for NOT manually flying is cited for passenger comfort - the pax just want smooooth.. all the way to the floor.  The autopilot fortunately is more than capable of smooooth..

@martin-w
I don't know the official definition of 'abnormal' in aviation, but the maneuver in the video is far from normal and definitely not something the average airline pilot will be confronted with in an average career. You also don't practice flying a maneuver like that with an airliner at an altitude less then the aircraft's wingspan. Unless this guy has had to do a missed approach at this airport in this style before I would assume that this was something he's not doing on a regular basis either. Also, the approach chart that was posted doesn't say anywhere that you should fly a 360 in case you need to go around. In fact, there is no missed approach procedure mentioned on the chart at all. Now of course we don't know the intel that the chart is urging you to check, but this was likely an individual decision taken by that crew on that flight. So I would say this was definitely an abnormal situation (while obviously not an emergency), whatever the definition of that term, and nothing you would prepare a lot for like simulator training e.g.

Considering this I was making the point that it's likely the pilot flying an aircraft that forces them to do a lot more manual flying on a daily basis than modern airliners and therefore accrues substantially more manual flying time will be more proficient when faced with a maneuver like this than a pilot utilizing more automation.

This is the current published MAP btw:

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by threegreen

He's more than likely doing a visual approach so neither the RNAV minimums or missed approach procedure would apply.  There's also a tower here, so what he did could have been in response to an instruction from them.  I've been told to do a 360 on final before, not that low but it does happen. The bank angle only looks to be around 20-30 degrees too which is pretty standard when flying a pattern, and although hard to read his airspeed looks fine for flaps 30 maneuvering speed which I think is around 145 knots at that weight.

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by BrianW

57 minutes ago, threegreen said:

This is the current published MAP btw

I think the captain is doing a visual approach so whatever the chart stipulate wont matter.

 

Edit: what BrianW  said.

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by SAS443

When you fly into mog, kandahar or bagram, this IS normal.

What is worth noting, is that it was filmed from both inside and outside the cockpit, which leads me to suppose that it was not entirely unexpected that the aeroplane would be performing that 360, or possibly that the pilot figured he'd put on 'a bit of a show' for the cameras. He clearly knows what he is doing with the aeroplane, because not only does he manage it with no problems, he also rolls out pretty much perfectly on the centreline too, which if nothing else shows that he can certainly fly a well-coordinated turn manually.

Sure, it's unusual for an airliner to do that, but if you're a decent pilot it's no big deal to fly a nice turn without dropping height and rolling it out on a specific heading, after all, we've all had to do that for the PPL test. Besides which, some of the estimates for his altitude which a few people have made in relation to this video clip are way off the mark; the 727 has a wingspan of 108 feet, and when you see it pass by the camera to commence its turn, it is in a slight climb. Even a cursory examination of the shot, if you take the wingspan and extrapolate it to the distance from the bottom of the fuselage to the water, will tell you that the aircraft is well over 100 feet above the ground and climbing as it commences the turn, so it's doubtful that the wingtips ever got anywhere near less than 50 feet above the water.

There's no denying it is low down, but don't forget, every pilot in the world flies low twice on every flight, in order to take off and land, so there isn't one of us which hasn't flown low. And if you think that 727 landing is skillful, remember that Guy Gibson and his squadron mates flew all the way from Lincolnshire to the Ruhr Valley at less than that altitude in aircraft with a similar wingspan and of a similar size to the 727, whilst carrying almost 10,000lbs of explosives, plus enough fuel for a return trip, and then they dropped down to 60 feet for the attack. And all that was at night, also over water, and whilst being shot at.

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by Chock

49 minutes ago, KevinAu said:

When you fly into mog, kandahar or bagram, this IS normal.

 

Yep, what I gathered too from a little research. So as I said, the pilot had probably done this a number of times before. Certainly wasnt a spur of the moment, never done before manoever. 

And as Chock said... it was being filmed from ground level too, so clearly it was an expected manouver. As others have said,quite normal at this airport.

 

Edited March 29, 20206 yr by martin-w

31 minutes ago, Chock said:

Even a cursory examination of the shot, if you take the wingspan and extrapolate it to the distance from the bottom of the fuselage to the water, will tell you that the aircraft is well over 100 feet above the ground and climbing as it commences the turn, so it's doubtful that the wingtips ever got anywhere near less than 50 feet above the water.

There's no denying it is low down, but don't forget, every pilot in the world flies low twice on every flight, in order to take off and land.

 

Exactly, more like 200 feet. Competent flying, but I dont see this notion that its somehow "awesome flying that modern pilots cant do" at all. 

Any competent pilot should be able to do this....as long as he has mentally prepared him/herself for the task. That means reviewing the procedure, know what to expect, mentally fly it, and have limits set. If not, any pilot will end up in a ball.

6 hours ago, Murmur said:

I think it's not even open to debate that an airliner pilot doing say 100 hr/yr of manual flying, is (with a high probability) more good at manual flight than a pilot doing (for airline procedures or whatever else) less than say 1 hr/yr of effective manual flight.

 

True, but that's not the debate here. The debate here is in relation to the video posted. And if a modern pilot could hand fly it equally well. I maintain he/she could. I maintain the approach isn't as low as people claim, more like 200 feet, and isn't as super hard to hand fly as some hear are claiming. I maintain a pilot of a modern jet, with more automation, would have little difficulty hand flying this approach. 

8 hours ago, martin-w said:

 

. I maintain a pilot of a modern jet, with more automation, would have little difficulty hand flying this approach. 

That sounds a little like an oxymoron.

And maybe...maybe not with that statement.