Don't Turn On The AutoPilot

[pelmet]

The line indoc/check is about gaining experience and finally being evaluated....the pilots are expected to know what they are doing. And...and...while company policies vary somewhat, during line indoc/checks the plane/operations are flown as an operational flight. There is no training really been done. There is learning, but that is a product of the experience, and there is evaluation.

From my point of view, there is no specified training happening, and I take this rather limited view so to discourage the younger (and sometimes older) ones from playing with the plane under the guise that it is trainng.

From the Transport Canada website under Division VIII - Training

S745.124(33)(b)(c)(f) - Line Indoctrination - Sectors/Hours Requirements

The purpose of line indoctrination is to refine, in a line context, the initial training a pilot candidate has received on that aircraft type. This training should ensure that the candidate will be fully prepared to conduct operations in his/her designated position on all company routes for which he/she may be assigned.

The most demanding phases of any flight are the take-off and landing and therefore, these phases of flight should be emphasised during line training.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/s ... n8-316.htm

I always figured that there might be training or instructing being done on Line Indoc when during the several type ratings I have done.....all had line indoc with pilots with the title Training or Instructor pilot.

[trey kule]

Well to quibble, for no other reason then I am bored.
Some airlines use a check pilot for line indoc....just saying.

Also, training, is used in a broad sense here. But I will be more careful in future posts to make certain I convey things as my opinion as to what is going on during a "training" session.

I also will, in future, refer to line indoc as training...

Your line indoc checks?..ah I mean line indoc training.....they do that in 172s?

[pelmet]

Some airlines use a check pilot for line indoc....just saying.


Anyway, I will defer to all your experience taking line checks is a 172.

Actually, I have gotten checked out in a 172 in two far apart locations this year. Quite enjoyable although I have been in some much cooler stuff as well. One was a 172S model, the new style 172. Interesting that the actual fuel selector has only Left, Right and Both. The Off selection is with a Pull out handle below the selector. Curious why Cessna changed the design. Also 5 drains in each wing and three underneath along with fuel injection.

Was also supposed to do the 172 RG(have lots of previous time in it) but it was cancelled until a later date. Found a loose exhaust on the walkaround.

[pdw]

One was a 172S model, the new style 172. Interesting that the actual fuel selector has only Left, Right and Both. The Off selection is with a Pull out handle below the selector. Curious why Cessna changed the design.

In the dark or if a newbie the "Off selection" could be more easily confused with the "Both" selection, and the 172 often ended up being used for training where that's put to the test. I'll bet that's the reason.

[Doc]

One was a 172S model, the new style 172. Interesting that the actual fuel selector has only Left, Right and Both. The Off selection is with a Pull out handle below the selector. Curious why Cessna changed the design.

In the dark or if a newbie the "Off selection" could be more easily confused with the "Both" selection, and the 172 often ended up being used for training where that's put to the test. I'll bet that's the reason.

To turn the fuel "OFF" in a simple airplane should require a wee bit of "effort" to prevent it from happening accidentally.

[Shiny Side Up]

It should, but it seemed that some airplane manufacturers had to learn that lesson the hard way. One of the faults of both the Cessna, Piper and many other designs, the fuel selector can be changed to an off position which isn't really differentiated from theother positions. The Cessna one in particular, in a moment of confusion, I suppose someone could confuse which is th long end of the pointer of the selector, particularly if you were running it on the left or right tank to begin with. In the Piper and Mooneys the selector is additionally out of sight, and the positioning of Left /Right/ Off on the selector could lead someone to switch it off if it was selected on Right and they thought it was on left. Human beings are notoriously bad with left and right, I can't even count how many times I've asked a student to turn left or right and they went the other way. This has led Cessna to switch the style of the fuel selector (originally actually changed at the introduction of the Cardinal, then introduced to the 172 line after) and Beechcraft has a very specific style of selector where to get it into the off position one must push down on a tab to do so theoretically making accidental turn offs unlikely. Notably, the aircraft specifically designed for training - The 150, the Tomahawk and the Skipper - all changed this aspect to reduce confusion. The Skipper and Tomahawk put the fuel selector up where it can be seen between both seats, and the 150 did away with any need to select different tanks.

[who me ?]

This American Airline's Training video covers this auto pilot/automation problem.

http://youtu.be/h3kREPMzMLk

[Colonel Sanders]

in a moment of confusion, I suppose someone could confuse which is the ... pointer of the selector

This happens all the time. A guy, with plenty of grey
hair, jumped into a local M7-235C to taxi it to the
pumps for gas. He reached down, and turned the
fuel selector from ON to OFF - the little end of the
handle was pointing at ON, but he must have thought
the long end of the handle was the indicator, so he put
that to ON, which put the pointer of the handle to OFF.

He started the engine, it ran briefly, and died. He then
proceeded to crank and crank and crank and crank
with the rather obvious objective of killing the battery
and melting down the starter.

I couldn't take it any longer. I walked over and told
him to turn the fuel on. He glared at me ferociously,
reached down and turned the fuel on, and the engine
started. He taxiied to the pumps, got fuel and left.

I walked away - another person that hated me for
helping them. Par for the course.

[Beefitarian]

Here I go again.

So, if I followed your Maule story correctly, and I remember the fuel selector on the predominately "N" model 172s I fly... I really need more pictures here.

The pointer is the short end in one plane and the long end on the other? Fun game.

[Shiny Side Up]

I walked away - another person that hated me for
helping them. Par for the course.

Of course! I thought you would have caught on to how the pilot world works by now, but I'll help you out (and you can hate me for it). Flying airplanes isn't about being safe, or good at it, its all about appearances. For example, if you are a pilot of an aircraft, you must also appear to be an expert at it, especially if you are also the owner of said aircraft. Anything that contradicts this illusion is one of the vilest things that one pilot can do to another. Especially so if you were younger than him, and even worse, you probably weren't wearing your displays of your authority - your ray-bans, giant watch and white shirt replete with gold bars - so you made it look like a bystander gave aid to someone who's a pilot! Worse yet, you were probably all dirty or something so onlookers might have thought you were a mechanic or something. It was a heavy blow to his ego, I'm suprised he didn't come after you.

[Beefitarian]

I hate white shirts. Sauce stains my coloured ones bad enough.

[Shiny Side Up]

Tie-dye suits you better anyhow.

[Beefitarian]

I keep threatening to grow my remaining hair out.

[vcollazo]

Having flown both the F111D and the Airbus 320, both fly by wire and glass cockpit, as well as having been a Wing Safety Officer and accident investigator, I have strong opinions on this subject. There are times when it is prudent to use 100% of the automation, and there are times to use just parts of it. It is incumbent on the professional aviator to thoroughly understand the automation and how the various parts interact. This latest Asiana accident as well as the AF447 accidents are just part of a long chain of accidents resulting from shortcomings in this area. At the same time, the magic always seems to fail on the proverbial dark and stormy night, so I always made it a point to maintain my profficiency in hand flying both aircraft. When I was an FO on the bus, it troubled me to see captains who always engaged the AP/AT at 200 feet and kept them on till 100 or 200' on landing. Unless things really got hectic, I would always hand fly till at least 10,000 feet, and on every 4th or 5th flight I would kick off all the magic about 120 miles out and calculate the descent path in my head then hand fly the descent,approach, and landing. I strove to fly as smoothly as the autopilot and to better or equal the fuel burn that the AP normally gave. I knew the pitch attitudes and power settings for every phase of flight. On the other hand if I felt tired on a red eye or things got hectic, then I had no compunction about using the magic from shortly after liftoff till landing rollout.

[Cat Driver]

Ahhh but you are an aviator it is the pilots who get behind their machines and allow the machine to fly them.

[pelmet]

Having flown both the F111D and the Airbus 320, both fly by wire and glass cockpit, as well as having been a Wing Safety Officer and accident investigator, I have strong opinions on this subject. There are times when it is prudent to use 100% of the automation, and there are times to use just parts of it. It is incumbent on the professional aviator to thoroughly understand the automation and how the various parts interact. This latest Asiana accident as well as the AF447 accidents are just part of a long chain of accidents resulting from shortcomings in this area. At the same time, the magic always seems to fail on the proverbial dark and stormy night, so I always made it a point to maintain my profficiency in hand flying both aircraft. When I was an FO on the bus, it troubled me to see captains who always engaged the AP/AT at 200 feet and kept them on till 100 or 200' on landing. Unless things really got hectic, I would always hand fly till at least 10,000 feet, and on every 4th or 5th flight I would kick off all the magic about 120 miles out and calculate the descent path in my head then hand fly the descent,approach, and landing. I strove to fly as smoothly as the autopilot and to better or equal the fuel burn that the AP normally gave. I knew the pitch attitudes and power settings for every phase of flight. On the other hand if I felt tired on a red eye or things got hectic, then I had no compunction about using the magic from shortly after liftoff till landing rollout.

Seems like a good idea. Use it as required and if manual flying recency desired, then manually fly. We used the A/P a lot the other day in Atlanta even though the weather was good. Triple ILS PRM approaches with airliners on either side of you and a monitor controller on com #2 whose only job is to kick your ass(but make the other guy go around) if you deviate very much laterally. Plus Triple parallel RNAV departures with little tolerance for deviation regardless of the crosswind. While you should be able to easily do it without the A/P, it is better to play the odds somewhere else with less picky ATC.