The FAA recently released a Safety Alert for airline operators reminding us that "maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight operations is necessary for safe flight operations."
The alert continued: "Modern aircraft are commonly operated using autoflight systems (e.g., autopilot or autothrottle/autothrust). Unfortunately, continuous use of those systems does not reinforce a pilot’s knowledge and skills in manual flight operations. Autoflight systems are useful tools for pilots and have improved safety and workload management, and thus enabled more precise operations. However, continuous use of autoflight systems could lead to degradation of the pilot’s ability to quickly recover the aircraft from an undesired state."
In other words, click it off and fly the plane on a regular basis, so that when the magic isn't working, you're able to!
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Are you an Autoflight Junkie?
Autopilots have been around for a while now. Amazingly, the first aircraft autopilot was developed by Sperry Corporation in 1912! I seem to have missed the hundreth birthday of the autopilot somehow.
Two decades ago the autopilots on most airplanes still weren't all that hot. They could hold a heading and altitude pretty good, and track an ILS when things were tight. Tracking a VOR radial was like doing S-turns down the airway. The button for airspeed/mach hold looked better than it worked. Most pilots in the 727 days hand flew the airplane up to altitude, and were hand flying it for most of the approach. Autothrottles? Forget about it!
You knew power settings and pitch attitudes for every phase of flight - you had to!
Along with the digital computer revolution came autopilots and auto thrust systems that truley lived up to their names. Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) evolved into Flight Managment Systems (FMS), and GPS made the prospects of manual updates, plotting, lines of position, and all manner of once-necessary long range navigation techniques quaint.
There is not doubt that these fine systems have made possible many things that were not possible - at least not safe - using the old methods. Think of RNP approaches through mountain passes, category III autolands, RVSM separation above FL290, RNAV arrivals and departures; plus the advances in communication: SATCOM, CPDLC, and the many flavors of ADS.
But where is the line between using these systems as assistance, and dependence on them? When the autopilot is on for all but 5 minutes of a 12 hour flight, how are manual flying skills maintained? When pilots are virtually afraid to turn off the autothrottles, what happens if those systems fail?
When you follow the flight directors, do you look beyond the bars to see what pitch attitude is being commanded? If the flight directors suddenly went away, would you know what pitch attitude to set? For climb, cruise, descent? How about power settings.
What if the airspeed indicator we use for pitch guidance in constant power climbs and descents stopped working? It's easy if the A/S flag pops out, or your instructor slaps a sticker over the airspeed indicator, but what if it was just a little higher, and then a little more, and slowly, a little more? Would you notice if your airspeed were unusually high for the pitch and power you have? How far off would it have to be before you could tell? Without an operating airspeed indicator can you tell the difference between a low speed buffet and a high speed buffet? What are the sounds, how does it feel? Is that stall warning real?
Even with all the magic, don't forget to click it all off and fly the airplane on a regular basis. Pay attention to those pitch and power settings, they may save your bacon some night.
When we look at accidents like AF 447, we see that when the autopilot, flight directors, and autothrust went away, control of the airplane was lost very quickly. It's likely that it comes down to the pilot flying not knowing what attitude to fly. When the flight directors came back on in a mode matching an inappropriate climb rate they were likely followed. One and a half minutes later they would be falling at 10,000 feet per minute the stall warning having sounded constantly for the previous 52 seconds.
The automation is great. But, don't let it be the only way you do fly, or can fly the airplane.
Don't be an autoflight junkie.
Two decades ago the autopilots on most airplanes still weren't all that hot. They could hold a heading and altitude pretty good, and track an ILS when things were tight. Tracking a VOR radial was like doing S-turns down the airway. The button for airspeed/mach hold looked better than it worked. Most pilots in the 727 days hand flew the airplane up to altitude, and were hand flying it for most of the approach. Autothrottles? Forget about it!
You knew power settings and pitch attitudes for every phase of flight - you had to!
Along with the digital computer revolution came autopilots and auto thrust systems that truley lived up to their names. Inertial Navigation Systems (INS) evolved into Flight Managment Systems (FMS), and GPS made the prospects of manual updates, plotting, lines of position, and all manner of once-necessary long range navigation techniques quaint.
There is not doubt that these fine systems have made possible many things that were not possible - at least not safe - using the old methods. Think of RNP approaches through mountain passes, category III autolands, RVSM separation above FL290, RNAV arrivals and departures; plus the advances in communication: SATCOM, CPDLC, and the many flavors of ADS.
But where is the line between using these systems as assistance, and dependence on them? When the autopilot is on for all but 5 minutes of a 12 hour flight, how are manual flying skills maintained? When pilots are virtually afraid to turn off the autothrottles, what happens if those systems fail?
When you follow the flight directors, do you look beyond the bars to see what pitch attitude is being commanded? If the flight directors suddenly went away, would you know what pitch attitude to set? For climb, cruise, descent? How about power settings.
What if the airspeed indicator we use for pitch guidance in constant power climbs and descents stopped working? It's easy if the A/S flag pops out, or your instructor slaps a sticker over the airspeed indicator, but what if it was just a little higher, and then a little more, and slowly, a little more? Would you notice if your airspeed were unusually high for the pitch and power you have? How far off would it have to be before you could tell? Without an operating airspeed indicator can you tell the difference between a low speed buffet and a high speed buffet? What are the sounds, how does it feel? Is that stall warning real?
Even with all the magic, don't forget to click it all off and fly the airplane on a regular basis. Pay attention to those pitch and power settings, they may save your bacon some night.
When we look at accidents like AF 447, we see that when the autopilot, flight directors, and autothrust went away, control of the airplane was lost very quickly. It's likely that it comes down to the pilot flying not knowing what attitude to fly. When the flight directors came back on in a mode matching an inappropriate climb rate they were likely followed. One and a half minutes later they would be falling at 10,000 feet per minute the stall warning having sounded constantly for the previous 52 seconds.
The automation is great. But, don't let it be the only way you do fly, or can fly the airplane.
Don't be an autoflight junkie.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Building Airplanes is Hard
Boeing recently announced another delay in the 787 program. Industry analysts looking through holes in the fence have been predicting it for a while.
Now a year behind and power has not been applied to the first airplane yet, scheduled for about 3 months ahead of first flight.
The initial timeline was pretty aggressive, by any standard. Certification was planned to be done in about half the time of the 777. The 777 was the first big airliner to be completely designed on computers - spread all over the globe. That was pretty big undertaking, and allowed a lot of issues to be discovered without building one out of plywood first. However, the construction was pretty standard for the time - in short: Aluminum. The flight control system was fly by wire (computer controlled) but they really didn't do a lot other than move the controls in a mostly conventional way (except pitch control, which did incorporate a C* law). Flight envelope protections were weak (intentionally so) and easy to override. You could still stall the airplane. There is a case to be made - and Boeing makes it - that this arrangement is desirable.
More than a decade later comes the 787 (after a flirt with "sonic cruiser" and concept ideas as 7e7). The 787 is architecturally new in many ways. Just to name a few:
Now a year behind and power has not been applied to the first airplane yet, scheduled for about 3 months ahead of first flight.
The initial timeline was pretty aggressive, by any standard. Certification was planned to be done in about half the time of the 777. The 777 was the first big airliner to be completely designed on computers - spread all over the globe. That was pretty big undertaking, and allowed a lot of issues to be discovered without building one out of plywood first. However, the construction was pretty standard for the time - in short: Aluminum. The flight control system was fly by wire (computer controlled) but they really didn't do a lot other than move the controls in a mostly conventional way (except pitch control, which did incorporate a C* law). Flight envelope protections were weak (intentionally so) and easy to override. You could still stall the airplane. There is a case to be made - and Boeing makes it - that this arrangement is desirable.
More than a decade later comes the 787 (after a flirt with "sonic cruiser" and concept ideas as 7e7). The 787 is architecturally new in many ways. Just to name a few:
- Composite structure (and the advantages that come from a stronger non-corroding airframe)
- More electric architecture (increasing the usage and generation of electricity many times over, and including flight controls, pressurization, anti-icing, brakes, engine start, as a start.)
- Extensive Computer control and networking
- Less use of bleed air (used only for engine anti-ice)
- Enhanced aerodynamics
In addition, Boeing took on a new manufacturing scheme where a huge percentage of the airplane is outsourced to other vendors (who, in some cases, then outsourced to other vendors).
Simply put, on the 787 virtually everything is new. It's a miracle they could do it at all - but they will. How could it not take a long time to work out all the issues, find the bugs, fix the bugs, and finally get it all right? There will be hick-ups along the way - how could there not be? But what will come out of it is an amazingly comfortable airplane to fly in, a great airplane to fly, and one that has made another generational leap in efficiency in so doing.
Sunday, December 10, 2006
Too proud to learn the lessons of the competition?
In regards to the design of the 787 Dreamliner, Boeing did a lot of things right. There are many new innovations that will reduce crew workload and improve the safely and accuracy of the operation.
However, also having worked with Airbus products for many years there are a handful of items that Boeing should have picked up on that they did not. Many believe that Boeing feels because Airbus does it, that's reason enough not to. That would be foolish on Boeing's part, but it still may be true.
50 or more years ago, flight instruments were installed all over the cockpit in seemingly haphazard fashion - perhaps wherever they fit. Often the attitude indicator (called the artificial horizon then) was in the middle of the panel, not directly in front of the pilot (or anyone). The industry (and the FAA) finally came around and a standard arrangement of the six basic flight instruments was established. This remains the standard for "round dial" instruments to this day from Cessnas to 747s.
What we are seeing now with the advent of the "glass cockpit" instruments (instrument indications represented on computer displays - not hardware round-dial instruments) seems to be repeating history. Standardization is lacking - if not diverging. New private pilots must demonstrate an ability to use the equipment on the airplane they take their check rides in, because there is so much diversity among various equipment. Once, their operation was standard and intuitive. Now, it it neither. Has innovation brought confusion?
However, also having worked with Airbus products for many years there are a handful of items that Boeing should have picked up on that they did not. Many believe that Boeing feels because Airbus does it, that's reason enough not to. That would be foolish on Boeing's part, but it still may be true.
50 or more years ago, flight instruments were installed all over the cockpit in seemingly haphazard fashion - perhaps wherever they fit. Often the attitude indicator (called the artificial horizon then) was in the middle of the panel, not directly in front of the pilot (or anyone). The industry (and the FAA) finally came around and a standard arrangement of the six basic flight instruments was established. This remains the standard for "round dial" instruments to this day from Cessnas to 747s.
What we are seeing now with the advent of the "glass cockpit" instruments (instrument indications represented on computer displays - not hardware round-dial instruments) seems to be repeating history. Standardization is lacking - if not diverging. New private pilots must demonstrate an ability to use the equipment on the airplane they take their check rides in, because there is so much diversity among various equipment. Once, their operation was standard and intuitive. Now, it it neither. Has innovation brought confusion?
Saturday, November 18, 2006
What's a Trend Vector?
A trend vector is a device, an arrow symbol, that shows the trend of airspeed or altitude over the next few seconds. It's available on the latest flight instruments. It predicts the future, at the current rate of change.
For instrumentation, it's a great advancement, as it allows the airspeed or altitude trend to be ascertained without having to watch the instrument for a few seconds.
For instrumentation, it's a great advancement, as it allows the airspeed or altitude trend to be ascertained without having to watch the instrument for a few seconds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)