Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AP IMPACT: Automation In The Air Dulls Pilot Skill  
User currently offlinemotif1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 255 posts, RR: 0
Posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4540 times:

I didn't see this posted:
AP IMPACT: Automation in the air dulls pilot skill
Nothing new - there have been countless discussions on the a.net's fora.

M1


Not only is this incomprehensible but the ink is ugly and the paper is from the wrong kind of tree
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineloggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 4510 times:

Nothing like instilling fear into the flying public that all their pilots are up there not knowing how to fly. All because a few less than competent pilots messed up very badly with tragic consequences.

Private pilot training, day 2: Stalls. Nuff said.

I can't speak for every airline, but my airline training program and manuals specifically cover situations where you would want to drop down in levels of automation. 1500 feet from landing, tower asks you to sidestep to a parallel runway. Not the time to start twisting knobs, punching buttons, etc. Click everything off and fly it like an airplane.

That's my 2 cents.



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4435 times:

I, for one, am very happy AP has reported on this. It's a huge problem facing the industry today - and loggcat, it's not an isolated problem, it's widespread. It's caused over 1,000 deaths over the last 10 years - that's not scaremongering, that's a valid worry.

Hopefully the problem can be brought to public attention and that'll force the FAA/CAA etc to take a second look at their regulations, change them, and stop these types of accidents happening in the future.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineloggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

Statistically speaking, it's not widespread at all (especially as nearly 1/4 of those 1000 deaths occurred on one flight - AF447). How many times do you hear about pilots who intervene automation to prevent disastrous outcomes? The answer is never because no-one outside of the cockpit would know about it, and even if they did it wouldn't be newsworthy in today's media. I guarentee you that automation intervention happens on nearly every flight. Our airline uses an acronym anytime you push a button or turn a knob: CAMI - Confirm Activate Monitor INTERVENE.

Every pilot flying for a US airline has started out with a private pilot's license. Again, day 2: Stalls.

Sure, it would be great to be able to get the accident rate to zero, but I disagree that the way to do that is with FAA/CAA overhaul of those kinds of regulations. At some point, the pilot's have to take responsibility for being a "pilot".



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently onlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7647 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4345 times:

Based on some of the technical info posted on the AF447 threads, the item I am more concerned with is a blurring of the lines between FBW and AP Automations, to my read it does appear as if some of the laws placed in the FBW System are more pertinent to the AP operation.

User currently offlineFlight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3413 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
It's a huge problem facing the industry today

Really? Do explain the credentials you have to make such a swepping statement.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4256 times:

Quoting loggat (Reply 3):
Statistically speaking, it's not widespread at all (especially as nearly 1/4 of those 1000 deaths occurred on one flight - AF447). How many times do you hear about pilots who intervene automation to prevent disastrous outcomes? The answer is never because no-one outside of the cockpit would know about it, and even if they did it wouldn't be newsworthy in today's media. I guarentee you that automation intervention happens on nearly every flight. Our airline uses an acronym anytime you push a button or turn a knob: CAMI - Confirm Activate Monitor INTERVENE.

Obviously many, many more accidents are avoided by pilots than caused. I don't dispute that, but the fact is training has not changed to accurately reflect the differences in a pilots job between now and 40 years ago. Pilots aren't the problem, it's the fact that training hasn't caught up.

Quoting Flight152 (Reply 5):
Really? Do explain the credentials you have to make such a swepping statement.

Being alive. If something causes over 1,000 deaths in 10 years it's a big problem. It's something nearly all aviation safety experts have been saying for - oh, I don't know, about 15 years now? Such as David Learmount: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zg1tSLdqdE. If you're pretending it isn't an issue you're in a state of denial.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlinesandyb123 From UK - Scotland, joined Oct 2007, 1133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4225 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting loggat (Reply 1):
Private pilot training, day 2: Stalls. Nuff said.

Indeed, but I think it is fair to say that automation actually interfered with the stall and demise of AF447. Although that was also to do with poor pilot recognition of the scenario.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 6):
If something causes over 1,000 deaths in 10 years it's a big problem. It's something nearly all aviation safety experts have been saying for - oh, I don't know, about 15 years now?

Yes (and I am kind of contradicting what I say above) but I wonder how many more deaths there would have been if there wasn't automation? Also, IFR (automation/insturment flying) makes so much safe flying possible than if we where restricted to VFR (manual / pilot flying).

Pilot error causes the majority of errors / fatalities. Automation makes the skies a safer place to be.

Sandyb123

[Edited 2011-08-30 10:16:04]

[Edited 2011-08-30 10:16:48]


Member of the mile high club
User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7):
Yes (and I am kind of contradicting what I say above) but I wonder how many more deaths there would have been if there wasn't automation? Also, IFR (automation/insturment flying) makes so much safe flying possible than if we where restricted to VFR (manual / pilot flying).

Pilot error causes the majority of errors / fatalities. Automation makes the skies a safer place to be.

Yes, obviously, automation has reduced the amount of accidents. Unfortunately it's created a new type of accident, one that didn't exist quite to the degree it does now before.

And to say "pilot error causes the majority of accidents" is a bit 2 dimensional - the whole point of what AP was reporting on is that training has blunted pilots reactions to certain things. I think "forgotten how to fly" is a bit far, but certainly conveys the problem. You do however need to remember the thousands upon thousands of lives that pilot's actions have saved, and not merely look at the amount that have died due to mistakes (the second number is much smaller than the first.)



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4317 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4112 times:

The key point I took from this article is that airline policies and procedures require automation so much that the pilots don't get any time to hand fly the airplanes and keep their skills sharp. This is a key point and I have seen it. In some cases its not necessarily a bad thing. One example is that at my company you cannot hand fly an ILS unless the Autopilot is on MEL, period. The reason for this is because of the Air Wisconsin AC in PVD a few years ago that porpoised and went off the side of the runway after a hand flown ILS became unstabilized and the captain took over from the F/O who was flying and tried to salvage the landing. That being said, there has to be some way to maintain proficiency in hand flying an ILS in case you do lose the autopilot.

Another example is because of the IRS and GPS, with FMS being standard in all airliners, pilots seem to forget how to navigate good old fashioned VOR style. There should be a way to keep proficient in this as well, maybe as part of a sim check.


And riding around in jumpseats of various carriers, its amazing to see the difference in philosophy. I have been in both UA and US jumpseats many times on the A320. UA pilots hand fly their airplanes a lot more, and many of them don't even use autothrottle on landing either. On the other hand, US pilots are switching the Autopilot on as soon as positive rate is called and gear is selected up. A US pilot even told me that there are strict rules about when they can turn the autopilot or autothrottle off, and he didn't agree with it, because there are situations he felt that it would be more beneficial to hand fly and not leave the autopilot on. But the directives come from the higher ups in the respective flight departments, not the crew members.


User currently offlinebueb0g From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2010, 672 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4103 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 9):
On the other hand, US pilots are switching the Autopilot on as soon as positive rate is called and gear is selected up.

That's strange, wasn't the case with US 1549 - the autopilot never went on, and they climbed to about 3,000 feet before hitting the birds.



Roger roger, what's our vector, victor?
User currently offlineUALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2973 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4093 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
It's caused over 1,000 deaths over the last 10 years - that's not scaremongering, that's a valid worry.

And it probably has saved 10,000. Just compare the accident rates in the 70s, 80s, 90s, 00s...

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7):
Indeed, but I think it is fair to say that automation actually interfered with the stall and demise of AF447.

I don't think it is fair at all to say that. Neither does the BEA's preliminary report.



AT7/111/146/Avro/CRJ/CR9/EMB/ERJ/E75/F50/100/L15/DC9/D10/M8X/717/727/737/747/757/767/777/AB6/310/319/320/321/330/340/380
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4084 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
I, for one, am very happy AP has reported on this. It's a huge problem facing the industry today - and loggcat, it's not an isolated problem, it's widespread. It's caused over 1,000 deaths over the last 10 years - that's not scaremongering, that's a valid worry.

And yet, according to the article: Fatal airline accidents have decreased dramatically in the U.S. over the past decade.

Hmmm....

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 8):
And to say "pilot error causes the majority of accidents" is a bit 2 dimensional - the whole point of what AP was reporting on is that training has blunted pilots reactions to certain things. I think "forgotten how to fly" is a bit far, but certainly conveys the problem.

How so? If a pilot is in the simulator every 6 months, being critically judged on things like (and this is hardly a comprehensive list) engine failures after V1, rejected takeoffs, windshear recovery and stalls, missed approaches with engines out, visual approaches with engines out, CAT I, II, and III approaches some with failed engines and missed approaches, non precision (VNAV) approaches, holding, and more...then how is the "training" blunting their reaction? What is the problem?


Quoting bueb0g (Reply 6):
Such as David Learmount: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Zg1tSLdqdE. If you're pretending it isn't an issue you're in a state of denial.

Explain to me how, if the pilot was handflying the airplane into a stall and crash, the automation was the problem here? Also, I would pay good money to see you take a simulator ride re-creating the conditions of AF447 even knowing that those conditions were coming. I am not buying into the theory that the two co-pilots were "blunted" by automation and did not know what they were doing. AF pilots are well trained and in a group with the best in the world. They were presented with very confusing and conflicting data (which is an understatement), and yet they were so "blunted" that they acknowledged that the aircraft gave up the protection of Normal Flight Laws and fell into Alternate Flight Laws (creating a new ball game), and acknowledged and wrestled with conflicting data from the ADC.

The question will always be "why didn't they ignore the bogus data and fall back on pitch and power?" And when the obvious question doesn't present an equally obvious answer (as it did, for example with Colgan 3407) the press and the public start overanalyzing it and looking for solutions to problems that really don't exist. And Ben, this means you...


User currently offlinebhill From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1023 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4067 times:

Bueb0g, I really think you are beating the wrong drum. Automation is just a TOOL...don't blame AP, collision avoidence, etc. If the airline SOP's require it's use or non-use, complain to them. In the case of the AF447, it's suspected that the SENSORS were faulty, as such it was not like the PF could have stuck his head out the window to get input to fly by hand. And with regard to your last post...would the birds have not been hit if the AP was on? Why hasn't AP done a story on how many lives have been saved? Because good news doesn't sell.....


Carpe Pices
User currently offlinestasisLAX From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3918 times:

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 8):
I think "forgotten how to fly" is a bit far, but certainly conveys the problem.

"...airlines direct their pilots to switch on the autopilot about a minute and a half after takeoff when the plane reaches about 1,000 feet, Coffman said. The autopilot generally doesn't come off until about a minute and a half before landing, he said.Pilots still control the plane's flight path. But they are programming computers rather than flying with their hands." according to the article. I am sure this is a variable that changes dependent on the individual airline, but here's the deeply concerning part of the article to me -

"Opportunities to fly manually are especially limited at commuter airlines, where pilots may fly with the autopilot off for about 80 seconds out of a typical two-hour flight, Coffman said."   

[Edited 2011-08-30 15:34:54]


"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety!" B.Franklin
User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2725 posts, RR: 15
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

Quoting stasisLAX (Reply 14):
"Opportunities to fly manually are especially limited at commuter airlines, where pilots may fly with the autopilot off for about 80 seconds out of a typical two-hour flight, Coffman said."

Glad it's not like that where I work. I don't think it's the official rule anywhere either though. This article had a decent number of inaccuracies.

I probably hand-fly 10-15 minutes of a two hour flight. Of course there is no one single typical flight. If we're busy I might turn it on earlier, if we're not then I won't.

Easiest way to fly a visual approach where we're cleared for it 30 miles out at 10,000 feet is to NOT use the automation much.

I never land with the autothrottles on because it is pilot's discretion where I work, and I prefer to do it myself rather than have to override them.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3884 times:

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 15):
I probably hand-fly 10-15 minutes of a two hour flight.

So would you say you hand fly from takeoff to 10,000 feet or so, and then pick it up again somewhere on the approach? Maybe the outer marker?


User currently offlineBCEaglesCO757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 242 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3846 times:

Quoting loggat (Reply 1):
Nothing like instilling fear into the flying public that all their pilots are up there not knowing how to fly. All because a few less than competent pilots messed up very badly with tragic consequences.

Private pilot training, day 2: Stalls. Nuff said.

I can't speak for every airline, but my airline training program and manuals specifically cover situations where you would want to drop down in levels of automation. 1500 feet from landing, tower asks you to sidestep to a parallel runway. Not the time to start twisting knobs, punching buttons, etc. Click everything off and fly it like an airplane.

That's my 2 cents.

Well said.

Besides. I thought you guys had an "easy button" up there.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3818 times:

Quoting loggat (Reply 1):
Private pilot training, day 2: Stalls. Nuff said.

For commercial pilots, day 2 of private pilot training could be 20 or 30 years ago. It is totally unreasonable to expect someone to have a fast reaction to an event they haven't trained for that long.

Quoting bueb0g (Reply 2):
Hopefully the problem can be brought to public attention and that'll force the FAA/CAA etc to take a second look at their regulations, change them, and stop these types of accidents happening in the future.

It's not a regulations problem...there are no regulations that force use of automation.

Quoting par13del (Reply 4):
it does appear as if some of the laws placed in the FBW System are more pertinent to the AP operation.

That's because the FBW and AP systems are fundamentally doing the same thing, just at different levels of abstraction. What FBW does today was purely the domain of autopilots 40 years ago.

Quoting sandyb123 (Reply 7):
Indeed, but I think it is fair to say that automation actually interfered with the stall and demise of AF447.

It's not fair to say that at all. The first thing the automation did when the sensors went bad is get out of the way, as it was designed to do.

Tom.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3816 times:

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18):
It is totally unreasonable to expect someone to have a fast reaction to an event they haven't trained for that long.

Yeah, but they are in the simulator every 6 to 9 months...


User currently offlineGoBoeing From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 2725 posts, RR: 15
Reply 20, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3766 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 16):
So would you say you hand fly from takeoff to 10,000 feet or so, and then pick it up again somewhere on the approach? Maybe the outer marker?

It all depends.

If we're leaving somewhere in NYC first thing in the morning after too short of a layover, with an extended level off at say 5,000 feet, traffic being pointed out frequently, bouncing around, etc. then I might elect to turn it on then even though we're only 2-3 minutes off the airport.

Opposite scenario, a few weeks ago departing LAX west for the Loop4 departure, it was enjoyable to fly it all the way up to the 30s as the workload was low, the big winding turn is fun and we were light and climbing really good.

One situation is almost automatically hand-flying into the 20s and 30s for me: empty flights, and since I'm a reserve pilot I usually see one per month. Way too much fun doing 3000-4000 feet a minute blasting through layers of clouds to have the machine on the controls!


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3685 times:

Quoting GoBoeing (Reply 20):
One situation is almost automatically hand-flying into the 20s and 30s for me: empty flights, and since I'm a reserve pilot I usually see one per month. Way too much fun doing 3000-4000 feet a minute blasting through layers of clouds to have the machine on the controls!

Haha, just bury the vertical indicator speed needle huh?


User currently offlineloggat From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 666 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3649 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 19):
Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 18): It is totally unreasonable to expect someone to have a fast reaction to an event they haven't trained for that long.
Yeah, but they are in the simulator every 6 to 9 months...

Exactly, I was just pointing out how fundamental the idea of stalls and stall recoveries are in a pilot's training. Of course, as catiii points out, we still practice them every 6-12 months in the simulators. Modern airliners mostly have stick-pushers too. I know you know that tdscanuck, but for others that don't... we have both stick shakers which vibrate the control yoke loudly and violently - "hey, idiot, you're about to stall" and then a pusher which forces the nose to go forward and break the stall "I guess you didn't take my warnings seriously, so I'm going to do your job for you". Of course, it doesn't work like that in an airbus where there is no control yoke. There are similar warnings and laws that effectively do the same thing in the airbuses.

The best part about having automated airplanes is that you can fly them "old school" if you want to, or not if you don't. Problems generally arise when you don't WANT to, but you HAVE to. On some of our shorter flights (ie. 30 mins t/o to ldg) I have hand flown the whole thing by choice just to keep sharp.

My personal mentality is that I command the automation to fly the airplane the exact same way I would fly it hands on. That means that I would never hit a button or turn a knob unless I know exactly what that is about to do to the airplane. No surprises. One of the nicest compliments I ever received from a passenger was one who asked "Were you flying or was the autopilot flying?" to which I said "we took turns" and he replied "Well, I couldn't tell where you switched controls. Nice job."



There are 3 types of people in this world, those that can count, and those that can't.
User currently offlinemaxpower1954 From United States of America, joined Sep 2008, 1159 posts, RR: 7
Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3573 times:

Some clarification here reference reply 9 - at US, all NAV departures are required to be flown on the autopilot. That's actually an FAA requirement. On the Airbus it can be engaged at 100 feet. On all other departures, it's at the discretion of the pilot. Until a few years ago autothrust (that's the correct name for it on the Airbus) was required to be used on all landings. Now, under day VFR conditions you can click it off and do it yourself...not a bad idea in gusty crosswinds. Other than certain approaches, there are no restrictions on hand flying the airplane on landings.

Automation is just great, like cruise control in your car. But when you get in heavy traffic (in the airplane gettinng close in and busy) it's better to knock that fancy stuff off and just fly the airplane. I love the Airbus and think it's a great airplane, but I can still fall back on my stick and rudder skills if I have to...aqquired in DC-3s, BTW.

[Edited 2011-08-30 23:20:11]

[Edited 2011-08-30 23:21:32]

User currently offlineltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13198 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3471 times:

One of the critical problems with automated flying systems is the old point made about problems with computers - GIGO - Garbage in - Garbage out. If the sensors are not working right (pitot tubes as a factor with AF 447), or settings are not made right (KAL 007), or are sudden changes in tempatures, wind, and so on, the autopilot systems will just follow that data to potential doom.

Perhaps there needs to be some interaction at ramdom times during flight to make sure pilots are alert, aware of their conditions, set ups so that if a faulty sensor both the PIC and FO can know of any conflicts in the AP systems and an abilty to quickly override if in potentially dangerous enviromental situations.


25 par13del : To stir the pot, NO, that's why there is a pilot in the cockpit, he is supposed to recognize that something is wrong and revert to manual procedures.
26 UALWN : Just to clarify once again: the computers in AF447 recognized the GI and bailed out, as designed to do, leaving the pilots to sort out the situation.
27 Post contains links Lemmy : An excellent and nuanced take on cockpit automation from a professional: http://flightlevel390.blogspot.com/2011/08/automation.html. I always make a p
28 filejw : That maybe a requirement at some airlines but for sure not all.The POI of an individual carrier may say that but the FAA has not.
29 maxpower1954 : I thought the POI WAS the FAA! You may be right, though. But even the B737 -300/-400 fleet at US is required to use the autopilot for RNAV departures
30 Post contains images Mir : I generally handfly up to 18,000 feet if there isn't a complex departure procedure, and handfly all visual approaches (though the autopilot can do th
31 tdscanuck : If the sensors stop working properly, the automation drops out (by design) and notifies the flight crew that it has done so. This function worked pro
32 sandyb123 : This has always Been a question of mine. So the EICAS prompts for a response from the crew at random times through a flight. What happens if it doesn
33 apodino : That is not entirely true. RNAV departures do require the use of a flight director to ensure that the departure routes are being flown precisely, but
34 cbphoto : For the most part, automation brings the entire pilot group on an even playing field. Its often said, an Airbus (or most other heavily automated plane
35 catiii : Let me second this. Dave is, from what I can tell, an Airbus 320/319 Captain for US (although he never mentions his carrier). The writing is superb,
36 maxpower1954 : No, I'm afraid it is true at my airline - it's a company procedure that RNAV departures are auto-pilot flown. We don't have the option of hand flying
37 LuisKMIA : When "Airways Magazine" published a special issue dedicated to Southwest, I remember a paragraph talking about how the airline asked Boeing for the op
38 catiii : To clarify, his viewpoint is in conflict with ALPA's views on the flight and duty time rule.
39 tdscanuck : It's not a random time but it is an airline programmed time and, due to the way it's tied into the reset logic, it looks random to the flight crew. A
40 cbphoto : Ya, I believe that is correct, however I am pretty sure they have been re-connected (or re-established in procedures)! Just a few weeks ago, I jumpse
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Irish Aviation 14/10: Summer's In The Air posted Sat Jun 5 2010 02:31:28 by kaitak
Pacific Flier Is In The Air posted Sat Apr 17 2010 14:39:38 by COSPN
'Up In The Air' Shown On UA Flights posted Fri Mar 12 2010 15:52:46 by UA777222
L-1011 In The Air, Right Now! posted Wed Feb 17 2010 09:24:39 by michiganatc
Ill Tempered Celebrities In The Air! posted Wed Jan 6 2010 17:22:42 by Baexecutive
AA - Up In The Air Auction - 777 Simulator Time. posted Wed Nov 11 2009 12:23:31 by FXramper
Irishness In The Air: 30/09 posted Sat Oct 31 2009 04:52:40 by Kaitak
Inside AA Again In The Air , Cnbc Now! (July 31) posted Fri Jul 31 2009 18:21:19 by LipeGIG
41st Airborne: More Irishness In The Air. posted Sat Nov 29 2008 23:34:08 by Kaitak
39 Steps To Irishness In The Air posted Sun Nov 2 2008 01:23:58 by Kaitak