8 ms·

Pilots will actually very rarely use the autoland functionality (apart from when weather, e.g. low visibility, requires it, and also to ensure that they're curr

by cjrp 13y ago

Pilots will actually very rarely use the autoland functionality (apart from when weather, e.g. low visibility, requires it, and also to ensure that they're current with the procedure). They'll use the autopilot for the initial part of the approach, but then when visual with the runway will often disconnect it in order to fly the actual landing manually (still following the indications on the flight director, which are provided by the localiser/glidescope signals).

simpleigh 13y ago
Relevant link: http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/12/cockpit-confidential-the-autopilot-myth/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/12/cockpit-confidential-... "The touchdown had been a fully manual one, as the vast majority of touchdowns are."
jevinskie 13y ago
Why is this? Can they do a better (in terms of passenger comfort) job landing manually?
- cjrp 13y ago
  I couldn't say in terms of comfort, but they need to be able to perform a manual landing (for example if certain equipment on board is not functioning correctly, or the airport is not equipped for autolanding) so it makes sense that they would take every opportunity to keep their skills current. There's probably also a sense of pride in wanting to carry out a smooth landing by hand - especially given that most of the climb/cruise/descent will likely have been controlled by the autopilot.
- lisper 13y ago
  No, autoland is pretty good. But there are two factors that cause pilots to land manually most of the time: 1) pilots think they are better at handling last-minute unexpected contingencies like wind sheer or bird strikes (and they may well be right about that) and 2) pilots don't want to give the Powers that Be any additional data to suggest that they aren't actually needed to fly a plane at all. The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. (FWIW, I'm an instrument-rated private pilot.)
  - aghull 13y ago
    I can't imagine anyone stepping onto an autonomous passenger aircraft for a long time, not until long after cars and smaller commercial aircraft are regularly driven using computers only. And even that seems like a stretch. I don't see how pilots use or non-use of some automated systems is going to influence popular opinion on that one way or another. But maybe there's a perception among pilots that it will.
    - lisper 13y ago
      The fact of the matter is that most commercial jetliners today are fully automated. It is only takeoff and landing that are still done by hand. No one ever hand-flies a jetliner during cruise except in dire emergencies. In fact, at high altitudes, where the plane is flying in the "coffin corner" of the flight envelope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)) hand flying can be extremely dangerous.
  - snom380 13y ago
    I don't find it likely that pilots hand-fly approaches to make a point. Isn't it more likely that this is codified in airline operation instructions? As for completely autonomous, do you seriously think we have the technology available today to make an autopilot handle any conceivable situation without a human being present and ready to take over? (non-IR PP here)
    - lisper 13y ago
      It isn't "just to make a point". It's also to stay proficient, or to make the job less tedious. But whether to hand-fly an approach is always the pilot's discretion (as far as I know -- I'm a just a private pilot so I could be wrong about that). And no, automation can't handle "every conceivable situation", but neither can humans. Furthermore, humans screw up more often than autopilots. Pilot error is currently the single biggest contributor to the overall accident rate. Mind you, I'm not advocating fully autonomous aircraft. I like having a human in the loop, but that's in part because I am the human in the loop. It's far from clear that human pilots are a net win for safety.
- shin_lao 13y ago
  They are bound by regulations to do a certain number of landings every year.
jevinskie 13y ago
Why is this? Can they do a better (in terms of passenger comfort) job landing manually?

by cjrp 13y ago

simpleigh 13y ago

Relevant link: http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/12/cockpit-confidential-the-autopilot-myth/ http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/12/12/cockpit-confidential-... "The touchdown had been a fully manual one, as the vast majority of touchdowns are."

jevinskie 13y ago

Why is this? Can they do a better (in terms of passenger comfort) job landing manually?

cjrp 13y ago
I couldn't say in terms of comfort, but they need to be able to perform a manual landing (for example if certain equipment on board is not functioning correctly, or the airport is not equipped for autolanding) so it makes sense that they would take every opportunity to keep their skills current. There's probably also a sense of pride in wanting to carry out a smooth landing by hand - especially given that most of the climb/cruise/descent will likely have been controlled by the autopilot.
lisper 13y ago
No, autoland is pretty good. But there are two factors that cause pilots to land manually most of the time: 1) pilots think they are better at handling last-minute unexpected contingencies like wind sheer or bird strikes (and they may well be right about that) and 2) pilots don't want to give the Powers that Be any additional data to suggest that they aren't actually needed to fly a plane at all. The fact of the matter is that there are no technological barriers to making aircraft completely autonomous, but pilots want the world to remain in denial about this for as long as possible for the sake of their job security. (FWIW, I'm an instrument-rated private pilot.)
- aghull 13y ago
  I can't imagine anyone stepping onto an autonomous passenger aircraft for a long time, not until long after cars and smaller commercial aircraft are regularly driven using computers only. And even that seems like a stretch. I don't see how pilots use or non-use of some automated systems is going to influence popular opinion on that one way or another. But maybe there's a perception among pilots that it will.
  - lisper 13y ago
    The fact of the matter is that most commercial jetliners today are fully automated. It is only takeoff and landing that are still done by hand. No one ever hand-flies a jetliner during cruise except in dire emergencies. In fact, at high altitudes, where the plane is flying in the "coffin corner" of the flight envelope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffin_corner_(aviation)) hand flying can be extremely dangerous.
- snom380 13y ago
  I don't find it likely that pilots hand-fly approaches to make a point. Isn't it more likely that this is codified in airline operation instructions? As for completely autonomous, do you seriously think we have the technology available today to make an autopilot handle any conceivable situation without a human being present and ready to take over? (non-IR PP here)
  - lisper 13y ago
    It isn't "just to make a point". It's also to stay proficient, or to make the job less tedious. But whether to hand-fly an approach is always the pilot's discretion (as far as I know -- I'm a just a private pilot so I could be wrong about that). And no, automation can't handle "every conceivable situation", but neither can humans. Furthermore, humans screw up more often than autopilots. Pilot error is currently the single biggest contributor to the overall accident rate. Mind you, I'm not advocating fully autonomous aircraft. I like having a human in the loop, but that's in part because I am the human in the loop. It's far from clear that human pilots are a net win for safety.
shin_lao 13y ago
They are bound by regulations to do a certain number of landings every year.

jevinskie 13y ago

Why is this? Can they do a better (in terms of passenger comfort) job landing manually?