Flying: Do you really have control?

Apologies as I have been rather busy and unable to follow up until now.

I had a chance to debrief with Col Cuadrado last night. It was our pleasure. Attendance (and retention) was excellent with a count of 35+ so we can only be extremely grateful for the interest shown and very glad you enjoyed it.

There were some language barriers which evidently did not stop 99% of the message from coming across. So apologies for the extra effort on the part of the audience and again thank you for following through the full 90+ minutes with some very interesting questions.

Eduardo did bring up that there was some minor misunderstanding on one of the questions and asked me to clarify as follows.

Eduardo had brought a very strong point that no matter how good automation is (and he has been instrumental in developing some of the best automation in the business) the Pilot in Command must still be in control. He pointed out to the increasing presence of lack of flying basics in incidents and accidents and thus recommended that autopilot-off flying is practiced and used much more than the current industry norm.

The question by the audience was pertaining to single-pilot, IFR operations being very reliant on autopilot use and whether that was a good idea given the above recommendation.[My additions in brackets]

Eduardo’s prior view was obviously more pertinent to the multi-crew environment. Oftentimes, LPV/CATII/III , PBN+RNP in terminal area , as well as high-altitude operations autopilot use is mandated by AOC procedures and even by the AFM, so it is difficult to implement this view. Hence the usefulness of the discussion.

As to the single-pilot IFR operation, he distinguishes between the training and the operational environment. His idea is we should strive to train hand-flying VFR and IFR whenever sensible and able. [In the light of the increased bureacratic effort brought about by EASA for GA, devoting fewer resources to paperwork and more to flying would be ideal and allow more implementation of the “more flying” concept. This has already been recognized and progressively but only partially addressed by EASA. It will take some time before we really see the pay-off. ]
He does of course recognize the workload management value of the autopilot in operational single-pilot situations. He would not hesitate to advise its use for such purposes, especially when workload is high , more so in IFR, for weather, airspace, onboard situation, fatigue, or any other valid reason. The point is the pilot must always be fully cognizant of the autopilot engaged mode and its logic, what feedback it will provide in case of degradation, and what limitations it has. [On some modular avionics GA aircraft not all of this logic is immediately evident. Take for example the use of GPSS in HDG mode or of separate altitude preselectors. ]The pilot must always be ready recognize whenever the autopilot is not flying the aircraft as desired and be ready to take-over if it cannot be promptly recovered. Unless immediately evident, rather than figuring out why the aircraft is turning right when it should turn left…first make sure it starts turning left, then figure out why it wasn’t.

Again it was a fun presentation for me and hopefully most of the attendees. Thanks.