Pilots "not well trained" for manual approaches

After a messed up manual approach by an A321 in Fuerteventura, the plane hitting the ground with 3.3g after initiating a go-around, the carrier prohibited pilots flying manually.

The logic is that, due to the routine practice of using automatic systems, the pilots are "not well trained" to fly manually. So instead of training them, they just forbid it. Makes sense, right?

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: moebius

Pilots are relying more and more on automation and it's going to result in a disaster. This certainly isn't going to help any.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: moebius

Pilots are relying more and more on automation and it's going to result in a disaster. This certainly isn't going to help any.

At this point they shouldn't be called pilots any more, if they can't fly the damn plane.

That was happening the last 10 years of my career.. We used to pride ourselves on being able to fly the aircraft but the new crop of pilots coming up were so use to being button pushers they would almost vapor lock when they actually had to manually fly the aircraft especially in low visibility approaches or bad weather.

Many of the guys in my generation would hand fly the aircraft up to 18,000 feet and in more cases than not would hand fly an approach simply because we were smoother than the FMS (flight management system). Autoland was mostly a controlled crash if there were anything other than almost no wind and certainly no cross wind.

Snap out of it and fly!

Do they still score Landings by which wire you hook?
You would think when you're flying something that's more expensive than a city block you would be trained how to use it in all weather conditions

Children of the Magenta Line, as some author put it.

The automated cockpit is surely a double-edged sword.

I actually wonder about this every time I fly! How much are the pilots doing versus how much is the computer doing? Complete outsider here, zero knowledge of anything aviation related. Just a regular airline passenger here.

I know that landings are going to depend on the environmental/weather conditions for each landing.....but sometimes there is such a complete difference from one landing to the next that it makes one wonder. Some landings just "feel" computerized, and others "feel" much more finessed and as if an actual person is at the controls. Stupid question here, so my apologies, but is autopilot taken off for landings? I had always assumed that, but like I said sometimes it just feels like a computer at the controls.

I remember reading in Flight back in the 80's how the flight crew of the future will consist of one man and a dog. The dog is there to bite the man if he touches anything and the man is there to feed the dog.

Just one more reason for me to not fly anymore. The last time I flew was in 2014. I'm not planning on it anytime soon. If Egypt ever becomes safe to visit again, I'll take a boat.

originally posted by: KansasGirl
I actually wonder about this every time I fly! How much are the pilots doing versus how much is the computer doing? Complete outsider here, zero knowledge of anything aviation related. Just a regular airline passenger here.

I know that landings are going to depend on the environmental/weather conditions for each landing.....but sometimes there is such a complete difference from one landing to the next that it makes one wonder. Some landings just "feel" computerized, and others "feel" much more finessed and as if an actual person is at the controls. Stupid question here, so my apologies, but is autopilot taken off for landings? I had always assumed that, but like I said sometimes it just feels like a computer at the controls.

If you consider the "landing" to be the actual touchdown, then most landings are hand (manually) flown. It is usually the instrument approach that is flown by the autopiloot coupled to the navigation system that gives both lateral and vertical guidance. There are some aircraft that have zero-zero autoland capability with auto flare, auto braking and even auto reverse thrust. And the pilots are trained to fly the approaches and land. They just don't get much practice.

a reply to: KansasGirl

Watching a Maylasian Airlines plane try to land at Brisbane, Queensland about a week ago, WAYYYY below the glide slope, watching him come in over the factory roofs, and wondered if he was going to put it down short, suddenly, engines screaming, and nose up, tail down, he put on a lot of power, I thought for a moment he is going to stall, don't think I would have wanted to be a passenger on that plane. Presumably he did land safely, never heard about crash. We had been sitting watching the planes land while we waited for son to visit his workplace, this plane was noticeably low compared to dozens of other planes landing prior to it.

a reply to: lynroberts51Open day at the BNE hangars was it, or just nearby?

Maybe start giving them monthly check rides in a Tiger moth..

a reply to: thebozeian
Acacia Street Loop is a good spot at Brisvegas for watching landings and Takeoffs..

a reply to: F4guy
Yeah Cat IIIc, the wholly grail of autoland. It should be able to automatically land, brake, taxi all the way to the NIGS stop line at the gate. Trouble is, while there are aircraft that have Cat IIIc autoland capability and there are airports that are basically set up for it, as far as I know there are currently no performed Cat IIIc landings performed last I looked. That may have changed but I dont think the Europeans are yet allowing it and although some US airports are capable its not yet happening. I wouldn't mind betting that several pilot associations have a hand in that.

originally posted by: moebius
After a messed up manual approach by an A321 in Fuerteventura, the plane hitting the ground with 3.3g after initiating a go-around, the carrier prohibited pilots flying manually.

The logic is that, due to the routine practice of using automatic systems, the pilots are "not well trained" to fly manually. So instead of training them, they just forbid it. Makes sense, right?

www.flightglobal.com...

I’ve got single engine license with instrument rating. Soon, I will earn a multi engine rating. Every pilot should be able to fly a manual approach regardless of conditions, in any type of aircraft they’re certified.

a reply to: EternalSolace
It’s okay you loose lypsed bastard. My torpedo and Gna dominance will own your

a reply to: waynos
Yep I remember that one too. Became quite a famous quote if I remember.

originally posted by: moebius
After a messed up manual approach by an A321 in Fuerteventura, the plane hitting the ground with 3.3g after initiating a go-around, the carrier prohibited pilots flying manually.

The logic is that, due to the routine practice of using automatic systems, the pilots are "not well trained" to fly manually. So instead of training them, they just forbid it. Makes sense, right?

www.flightglobal.com...

I can't see the article, it's asking me to register. What carrier?

When I can see the wind is gusting unpredictably from the motion of tree branches, I don't really expect a smooth landing myself.

Is 3.3g really that bad? How many g's does it take to damage the aircraft? I know amusement park rides easily go over 3 g's and some up to 5 g's and people pay for that pleasure, though I suppose they don't expect that when they're flying, but winds don't always cooperate.