Iata Report Aircraft Handling Manual Flying Skills

Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills
Report
1 Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills

Disclaimer
The information contained in this document is subject to constant review in the light of changing government
requirements and regulations. No subscriber or other reader should act on the basis of any such information
without referring to applicable laws and regulations and without taking appropriate professional advice. Although
every effort has been made to ensure accuracy, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) and any other
contributors to this publication shall not be held responsible for any loss or damage caused by errors, omissions,
misprints or misinterpretation of the contents hereof. Furthermore, IATA and any other contributors to this
publication expressly disclaim any and all liability to any person or entity, whether a purchaser of this publication or
not, in respect of anything done or omitted and the consequences of anything done or omitted, by any such person
or entity in reliance on the contents of this publication.
Other contributors’ opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the International
Air Transport Association. The mention of specific companies, products in this publication does not imply that they
are endorsed or recommended by the International Air Transport Association in preference to others of a similar
nature which are not mentioned.
© International Air Transport Association, 2020. All Rights Reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, recast, reformatted or transmitted in any form by any means,
electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage and retrieval system,
without the prior written permission from:
Senior Vice President
Safety & Flight Operations
International Air Transport Association
800 Place Victoria, P.O. Box 113
Montreal, Quebec
CANADA H4Z 1M1
2 Manual Flying Skills

Contents
Disclaimer ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................... 5
2. Survey Results in Brief .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Recommendations ................................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.1. Operators ............................................................................................................................................................................................6
3.2. Flight Crew ..........................................................................................................................................................................................7
4. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
5. Supporting Data - Survey Results ..................................................................................................................................... 8
5.1. Demographic Information.............................................................................................................................................................8
Question 1: Please specify your position. ................................................................................................................................8
Question 2: Do you have other duties? .....................................................................................................................................8
Question 3: What other duties do you carry out? .................................................................................................................8
Question 4: In which region are you based?............................................................................................................................9
Question 5: Please specify your age. ...................................................................................................................................... 10
Question 6: What is your experience in commercial aviation? ..................................................................................... 10
Question 7: What is your network? Select all that apply ................................................................................................. 11
Question 8: What is your type of operation? ........................................................................................................................ 12
Question 9: How many legs do you fly in a typical duty week? ..................................................................................... 12
Question 10: Could you please indicate the type of aircraft you currently operate? .......................................... 13
Question 11: What is your experience on the type you currently operate? ............................................................ 14
5.2. Airline Policy .................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Question 12: Does your airline policy allow and support manual flying without any limitations? ................... 14
Question 13: Does your airline policy allow and support manual flying within specific limitations? ............. 15
Question 14: Could you provide a description of your airline’s policy limitations (i.e., when do you engage and
disengage auto pilot, autothrust, etc.)? .................................................................................................................................. 18
Question 15: Please select the items corresponding to your airline's policy with regards to automation and
manual flying (including autothrust and/ or flight-directors off)................................................................................... 20
Question 16: What level of automation does your airline's policy allow during line operations: ..................... 22
Question 17: Can you provide additional key elements of your airline's policy with regards to the different
levels of automation (auto thrust / auto throttle included) in line operations? ....................................................... 24
5.3. Manual Flying .................................................................................................................................................................................. 25
Question 18: Can you describe in which situation you, as a pilot, would refrain from flying manually? ....... 25
Question 19: What kind of recent experience of manual flying do you have in line operations?.................... 29
Question 20: When do you typically engage the autopilot on departure? ............................................................... 31
Question 21: When do you typically disengage the autopilot on approach? ......................................................... 31
Question 22: Among the sectors that you fly, how many approaches (in %) do you fly with limited
automation? ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Question 23: Do you believe that manual flying practice becomes less important? ........................................... 32
Question 24: Does the use of automation have any impact on flight crew coordination? ................................ 33
Question 25: Does flying manually have any impact on flight crew coordination? .............................................. 35

Question 26: Please rank the factors that may lead to degradation of manual flying competency, with the
most important being 1. ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
Question 27: How often have you encountered an unstable approach as a result of manual flying in the past 5
years, and how often did that result in a missed approach; and was this managed using automation or
manually flown. ................................................................................................................................................................................. 37
Question 28: Have you ever been reluctant to disengage the autopilot? ................................................................ 39
Question 29: With autopilot engaged, in the case that situation awareness is lost, and until situation is
recovered; do you prefer to: ....................................................................................................................................................... 40
Question 30: If you prefer keeping automation engaged, is it: ..................................................................................... 41
5.4. Training Policy ................................................................................................................................................................................ 42
Question 31: What do you think is the best way to improve manual handling skills? For example, using the
aircraft with FD only. ...................................................................................................................................................................... 42
Question 32: In which training session(s) does your airline specifically train manual flying competency? 43
Question 33: Please specify the percentage of time that is dedicated to manual flying in recurrent training.
................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 43
Question 34: When performing manual flying training, which flight phases are trained? .................................. 44
Question 35: When performing manual flying training, in which operational conditions are you trained? . 44
Question 36: How would you rate your manual flying competency? ......................................................................... 45
Question 37: In which part/s of manual flying do you feel less competent? ........................................................... 45
Question 38: Does your airline use flight simulation training devices (FSTD), including Full Flight Simulator
(FFS), in recurrent sessions to train ......................................................................................................................................... 46
and enhance manual flying skills? ............................................................................................................................................ 46
Question 39: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?............................................................ 47
Question 40: Do you believe that training should put more emphasis on the expected transition from
automatic flight to manual flying and vice versa? .............................................................................................................. 48
Question 41: Do you believe that training should put more emphasis on the unexpected transition from
automatic flight to manual flying and vice versa? .............................................................................................................. 49
Question 42: Please use this space below for any additional information you would like to add:.................. 49
Appendix A – Methodology for extraction of data from free-text questions – IATA Accident Classification
Taxonomy ................................................................................................................................................................................... 51

1. Executive Summary
Today’s modern aircraft are operated using highly sophisticated automation. Automation is a useful tool for pilots
and has, without doubt, improved safety, operational efficiency and precise flight path management. However, it
was found that continuous use of automation does not strengthen pilots’ knowledge and skills in manual flight
operations and in fact could lead to degradation of the pilot’s ability to quickly recover the aircraft from an
undesired state.
Poor manual techniques are flagged by a number of accident analysis that cite inappropriate or erroneous control
inputs by the flight crew in response to abnormal events. Although the overall Loss of Control In flight (LOC-I)
accident rate has decreased, this accident category continues to outpace other factors as the leading cause of
fatal accidents. A number of these accidents may have had a different outcome if the pilots have shown a higher
level of monitoring and flying manual skills. Poor manual techniques may also lead to other events such as hard
landing, unstable approaches, runway excursions and others. Amongst other techniques and enhancements for
manual flight operations, keeping pilots engaged, maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills needed are
essential for a safe flight operation.
An analysis of the accident data conducted by IATA identified an increase in manual handling errors. To better
understand the issues and why many pilots are reluctant or unable to practice manual flight, a survey was
conducted by IATA on Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills to capture the pilots’ subjective feedback about
their airline automation policies, manual flying practices during everyday line operations and during operator
training.
This survey, which included 42 questions, was circulated to over 8,000 people in the aviation industry with the
objective to assess:
▪ if increased automation contributes to pilots’ over-reliance and manual flying deficiencies or shortcomings
▪ how critical manual handling skills are for pilots’ confidence and competence, and are needed to take control
of the aircraft when automated systems fail to function as intended
▪ the effect that training techniques and automation policies and guidance have on the ability of pilots to
obtain and maintain manual flying skills
▪ whether there is a need to adjust standards/guidance, so pilots have better opportunities to practice manual
flying skills without compromising flight safety, efficient flight operations and/or passenger comfort
▪ the degree to which dependency on automation may be occurring globally and review the procedures
currently employed to ensure pilots maintain the necessary skills.
Note: Pilot(s) and Flight crew are terms often used interchangeably in this document.
2. Survey Results in Brief

The overall results of the survey from 5,650 respondents:
▪ Good manual flying skills remain essential to achieve safe line operations
▪ Manual flying skills need to be trained and maintained, irrespective of the aircraft generation
▪ Manual flying skills can be lost if they are not practiced on a regular basis
▪ Pilots should have the possibility to revert to basic hand flying when situation permits
▪ Pilots should be trained to revert to manual flying when automation fails or during an emergency
▪ Pilots need to maintain manual flying skills to a high degree of proficiency and must develop confidence in
their ability to do so
But:
▪ Many pilots are facing very limited manual flying opportunities, due to regulatory restrictions or airline
policies.
▪ At some airlines, culture and policy discourage pilots from practicing manual flying, since deviations are
being managed in a strict way. Consequently, pilots keep away from hand flying, to avoid any potential
disciplinary measure.

▪ Some operators have established automation policies which specify the appropriate use of automation;
these policies may also include provisions related to manual flying. Automation policies vary among
operators. These range from always mandating the use of full automation, except for take-off and landing, to
encouraging the disconnection of automation whenever possible, under certain conditions.
▪ Although some of the respondents have indicated that they have no clear policies with regards to the use of
automation versus manual handling, many have indicated that their policies recommend the highest level of
automation to maintain a high level of situation awareness.
▪ The use of automation above a certain flight level being mandatory means that regulations prevent pilots
from acquiring practical manual flying experience at high altitude and high speed.
▪ The high altitude and speed cruising phase are trained infrequently in the simulator.
▪ Airline policies recommend the use of automation unless the pilot sees a situation that endangers the safe
conduct of the flight.
3. Recommendations
Recommendations regarding pilot training; flight crew techniques, and ways to encourage and measure safety
enhancements are listed in this section:
3.1. Operators
▪ As the manual flying competency is essential for flight Safety, Operators should:
‒ Consider whether their automation policies allow sufficient manual operation during line operations.
‒ Monitor, in a non-punitive way, using Flight Operational Quality Assurance (FOQA) data, pilots’ manual
flying performance.
‒ Analyze FOQA data to identify and correct deficiencies.
‒ Give guidelines to their pilots regarding the minimum level of automation that must be used (considering
manufacturers’ requirements and operational context).
‒ Encourage regular practice of manual flying skills, when appropriate, in order to reinforce the pilots’
confidence in their manual flying capabilities.
‒ Develop an integrated approach to manual handling into both line operations and simulator training (to
include more time allocated to manual flying in the simulator sessions).
‒ Ensure that the training objectives include the pilot’s ability to manually control the aircraft using the
relationship between aeroplane attitude, speed and thrust while monitoring and assessing the aircraft’s
energy state, and its anticipated flight path;
‒ Ensure that flight crew maintain their ability to manage the flight path through manual control of pitch,
bank, yaw and/or thrust. This may be conducted with or without the use of a flight directors. but demands
pilot competency, ability, knowledge, and skills in the cognitive and motor areas.
‒ Consult for further information with the different regulatory publications on promoting manual flight
operations when appropriate. Examples of such documentations are the Safety Alert for Operators
(SAFO 17007 issued on 5/4/17), EASA Safety Information Bulletin (SIB No.: 2013-05, Issued: 23 April
2013), and Transport Canada Advisory Circular (AC-600-06, Issued: 26 May 2015).
▪ The operator’s training policies should include statements about the importance of maintaining situation
awareness and, in particular, mode and energy awareness.
▪ Automation versus manual flying guidance rules should be based on a mature TEM approach (taking into
consideration the four major threats identified in the survey: adverse weather, poor visibility, fatigue and
traffic).

3.2. Flight Crew
▪ To ensure that Manual Handling Skills are maintained, Pilots should:
‒ Have a good understanding of the automation systems and use all pilots’ competencies when
encountering unusual situations.
‒ Perform a Threat and Error assessment of the situation to ensure both crew members are fully aware of
the risks involved when manually flying. This should include (but is not limited to):
▪ Weather conditions
▪ Crew experience
▪ Knowledge and experience of the operating environment (airport, air traffic control etc)
▪ Traffic conditions
▪ Fatigue
▪ What level of automation will still be engaged? i.e. does the pilot intend to use flight directors,
autothrust, etc
▪ Workload
‒ Following this assessment, a full briefing should take place which ensures both pilots are aware of when
and how the automation will be managed and this should include:
▪ When will the automation be disengaged?
▪ If there is an increase in workload, a reduction of situation awareness or any other situation that may
impact the flight safety, how will the automation be re-engaged?
4. Conclusion
Generally speaking, in modern aviation, automation has contributed to the improvement of systems accuracy,
reliability and greater operational efficiency. However, it must be noted, and this survey confirms this point, that a
significant number of pilots have experienced a degradation of their manual handling skills, and a subsequent over-
reliance and dependence on automation.
Operators must provide all their pilots, even the highly experienced ones, with opportunities, as appropriate, to
hand-fly the aircraft. They must also monitor in a non-punitive way, using FOQA data, pilots’ performance with the
view of improving safety. This data should be continuously used to guide future pilot assessment and training.
This general sense of lack of confidence in the pilots’ manual flying skills can be reversed by encouraging pilots to
fly manually whenever the situation permits.

5. Supporting Data - Survey Results
5.1. Demographic Information

Question 1: is a background question to identify the respondents’ position. A total of 5,650 participants responded
to this question; 56% are Captains.
56% OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE CAPTAINS

Question 1: Please specify your position.
43.72%
% of responses # of Responses 56.28%
Captain 56.28% 3,180
First Officer 43.72% 2,470

Captain First Officer
Answered 5,650 - Skipped 0
Question 2: The purpose of this question is to find out whether the respondents perform other duties. A total of
5,650 participants responded to this question. Most of the respondents indicated that they do not perform other
duties.
76% OF THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT PERFORM OTHER

24.00%
DUTIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AIRLINES
Question 2: Do you have other duties?
76.00%
No 76.00% 4,294
No Yes
Yes 24.00% 1,356
Question 3: We want to know, from the 1,356 affirmative responses to question number 2 above, the types of
duties they perform. About 62% indicated that they are instructors and 38% indicated that they are management
pilots. 359 out of the 1,356 did not specify the type of duty they perform.
MORE THAN 60% OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO PERFORM

OTHER DUTIES ARE INSTRUCTORS
Question 3: What other duties do you carry 37.91%
out?
62.09%
Management Pilot 37.91% 378

Management Pilot Instructor
Instructor 62.09% 619
Answered 997 - Skipped 4,653

This question indicates that amongst the 1,356 of pilots that perform other duties, more than 60% are instructors.
Question 4: This question identified the region where the respondents are based. 5,289 responded to this
question, the majority of the respondents are based in the Europe (EUR) region with 30%, followed by Middle East
and North Africa (MENA) with 26% and Asia Pacific (ASPAC) with 20%.
30% OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE BASED IN EUROPE REGION

Question 4: In which region are you based?
Africa (AFI) 3.72% 197 NAM
Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 19.53% 1,033 LATAM/CAR
North Asia (NASIA) 2.12% 112 MENA
Commonwealth of 1.30% 69 EUR

Independent State (CIS)
CIS
Europe (EUR) 30.10% 1,592
NASIA
Middle East and North Africa 25.64% 1,356
(MENA) ASPAC
Latin America and Caribbean 13.35% 706
(LATAM/CAR) AFI
North America (NAM) 4.24% 224
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
% of Responses
The geographical representation of the survey participants was not quite adequate, although there were no set
targets, Africa (AFI), North Asia (NASIA) and Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), Latin America and
Caribbean (LATAM/CAR), North America (NAM) did not participate in the numbers expected.
Question 5: The objective of this question is to know the age distribution of the respondents, the breakdown of
the 5,288 responses is as follows: the majority of the survey respondents fall between 30 to 40 years of age, with
32% of the total; followed by the respondents between the ages of 40 to 50 years of age with 28%. Whereas
respondents above 60 years are under-represented.

32% OF THE RESPONDENTS FALL BETWEEN 30 TO 40 YEARS OF AGE
Question 5: Please specify your age.
Above 60
years
Between 20 to 30 years 16.13% 853
Between 50
Between 30 to 40 years 31.90% 1,687 to 60 years
Between 40 to 50 years 27.76% 1,468 Between 40

to 50 years
Between 50 to 60 years 19.59% 1,036
Between 30
Above 60 years 4.63% 245 to 40 years
Between 20
to 30 years
0% 20% 40%
% of Responses
Question 6: The purpose of this question is to gain further insight into the respondents’ experience in commercial
aviation. 5,289 responded to this question, the majority has more than 15 years of experience.
42% OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE MORE THAN 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL

AVIATION
Question 6: What is your experience in More than
15 years
commercial aviation?
Between 10
to 15 years
Less than 2 years 7.11% 376
Between 5
Between 2 to 5 years 13.44% 711 to 10 years
Between 2
Between 5 to 10 years 17.77% 940 to 5 years
Between 10 to 15 years 19.47% 1,030

Less than 2
years
More than 15 years 42.20% 2,232
0% 20% 40% 60%
% of Responses

Looking at the regional distribution of the 2,232 respondents with more than 15 years of experience, it is to be
noted that most of them live in the MENA Region, followed by those who live in EUR.
Africa (AFI) 3% 73
Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 20% 439
North Asia (NASIA) 2% 49
Commonwealth of Independent State (CIS) 1% 19
Europe (EUR) 27% 608
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 30% 675
Latin America and Caribbean (LATAM/CAR) 11% 241
North America (NAM) 6% 128
Question 7: The purpose of this question is to get an idea of the sort of operation they perform; this question
asked if the respondents are involved in short, medium or long-haul flights. 5,289 responded to this question.
However, this question allows the participants to check more than one answer and hence the numbers are higher
than the number of survey respondents. Percentages are not calculated in this question because the same
participant was able to select more than one answer. The results show that the respondents’ selection of the
medium haul is slightly higher.
THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT THEY PERFORM MEDIUM-HAUL

FLIGHTS
Question 7: What is your network? 3,500
3,000
Select all that apply
# of Responses
2,500
2,000
1,500
Short haul: Under 3 hours each sector 2,542 1,000
500
Medium haul: 3 to 6 hours each sector 2,931
0
Short haul: Medium Long haul:
Long haul: More than 6 hours each sector 2,295
Under 3 haul: 3 to 6 More than 6
hours each hours each hours each
sector sector sector
887 respondents indicated that they operate both medium haul and long hauls. 1,578 of the respondents indicated
that they operate short, and medium hauls, and 682 respondents indicated that they operate short and long hauls.

Question 8: The aim of this question is to find out which of the service category is more predominant passenger,
cargo, or both. 5,289 responded to this question.
79% OF THE RESPONDENTS INVOLVED IN PASSENGER COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

Question 8: What is your type of
operation? 16.56%
Passenger 78.81% 4,168

4.63%
Cargo 4.63% 245
Both: Passenger and Cargo 16.56% 876 78.81%
Passenger Cargo Both
Question 9: To evaluate the influence of recent flying on pilots’ manual flying performance, the number of sectors
flown in a typical duty week are assessed. 5,289 participants responded to this question. The majority of the
responses report that they fly less than 5 legs per duty week.
46% OF THE RESPONDENTS REPORTED THAT THEY FLY LESS THAN 5 LEGS IN A TYPICAL DUTY
WEEK 21.91%
Question 9: How many legs do you fly in a Under than 5 4.12%
legs
typical duty week?
Between 6 –
10 legs
Under than 5 legs 45.76% 2,420
Between 10 –
Between 6 – 10 legs 28.21% 1,492 20 legs
Between 10 – 20 legs 21.91% 1,159 More than 20 45.76%

legs 28.21%
More than 20 legs 4.12% 218

Question 10: The aim of this question is to assess whether the survey respondents are operating today on newer
generation aircraft or older ones. This question allows the participants to check more than one answer and hence
the numbers are higher than the number of survey respondents. 5,289 responded to this question. The majority of
the survey participants indicate that they operate on the different types of generation 4 – jet aircraft.
MOST RESPONDENTS OPERATE MORE ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF GENERATION 4 JET

AIRCRAFT
Question 10: Could you please indicate the type of aircraft you currently
operate?
Generation 4 — Jet: 3,915
A318/A319/A320/A321 (including neo),

4200
A330, A340-200/300, A340-500/600, B777, 4000
A380, B787, A350, Bombardier C Series, 3800
Embraer E170/E175/E190/E195 3600
3400
Generation 3 — Jet: 1,191 # of Responses 3200
3000
2800
A310/A300-600, B737-300/400/500, B737- 2600
600/700/800 (NG), B737 MAX, B757, B767, 2400
2200
B747-400, B747-8, B717, BAE 146, MD11, 2000
MD80, MD90, F70, F100, Bombardier CRJ 1800
Series, Embraer ERJ 135/145 1600
1400
Generation 3 — Turboprop: 148 1200
1000
800
ATR 42-600, ATR 72-600, Bombardier Dash 600
400
8-400, BAE ATP, Embraer 120, Saab 2000 200
0
Generation 2 — Jet: 15
A300 (except A300-600), BAC111,

B727, B737-100/200, B747-100/200/300,
DC9, DC10, F28, L1011
Generation 2 — Turboprop: 102
ATR 42, ATR 72 (all series except -600),
BAE J-41, Fokker F27/50, Bombardier
Dash 7 and Dash 8-100/200/300 Series,
Convair 580-600 Series, Shorts 330 and
360, Saab 340
Generation 1 — Jet: 7
DC8, B707

Question 11: The objective of this question is to assess the respondents’ amount of flight experience on the
operated aircraft type. 5,289 responded to this question. The types of aircraft operated the most by the survey
participants and on which they have more than 3,000 hours are: A318 / A319 / A320 / A321 (including neo) fleet,
followed by B737-600 / 700 / 800 (NG) and B777.
THE TYPES OF AIRCRAFT OPERATED THE MOST BY THE SURVEY PARTICIPANTS AND HAVE
EXPERIENCE GREATER THAN 3000 HOURS ARE ON A318 / A319 / A320 / A321 (INCLUDING NEO)
FLEET, FOLLOWED BY B737-600 / 700 / 800 (NG) AND B777
Question 11: What is your experience on the type you currently operate?
It is apparent that those who operate on the following aircraft types: A318 / A319 / A320 / A321 (including NEO) as
well as B737-600 / 700 / 800 (NG), regardless of the number of legs they operate during a typical duty week, have
more than 3000 flight hours. While the respondents’ experience in other aircraft types varies.
5.2. Airline Policy

Question 12: The goal here is to gain more insight into the respondents’ airline policy. We want to know if their
policy allows and supports manual flying without any limitations? Out of the 5,241 responses, about 36% of the
respondents indicated that their airline policy allows and supports manual flying without any limitations.
ONLY 36% OF THE RESPONDENTS INDICATE THAT THEIR AIRLINE POLICY ALLOWS AND
SUPPORTS MANUAL FLYING WITHOUT ANY LIMITATIONS
Question 12: Does your airline policy allow and support manual flying without
any limitations?
No 64.11% 3,360
Yes, without any 35.89% 1,881

35.89%
limitations
64.11%
No Yes
How does this compare with the regional distribution of the respondents? Many of the EUR respondents’ airline
policy allows and supports manual flying without any limitations (901 Yes and 683 No).
In MENA, the proportion is completely different (172 Yes against 1;174 No).

Yes No
Africa (AFI) 74 121
Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 296 724
North Asia (NASIA) 34 77
Commonwealth of Independent State (CIS) 17 50
Europe (EUR) 901 683
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 172 1,174
Latin America and Caribbean (LATAM/CAR) 265 432
North America (NAM) 122 100
Question 13: Similar to Question 12, the aim of this question is to gain more insight into the respondents’ airline
policies and to find out if their policy allows and supports manual flying within specific limitations. 4,801
responded to this question. Sixty nine percent responded affirmatively that their airline policies allow and support
manual flying within specific limitations.
69% OF THE RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT THEIR AIRLINE POLICY ALLOWS AND SUPPORTS
MANUAL FLYING WITHIN SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS
Question 13: Does your airline policy allow and support manual flying within
specific limitations?
No 30.60% 1,469
30.60%
Yes, within specific 69.40% 3,332 69.40%
limitations
No Yes
The 30.60% of “No” does not match with the 35.89% of “Yes” in the previous question, as most airlines have some
kind of limitation(s) [at least manufacturers’ limitations], even when they strongly support manual flying.
How does this compare with the regional distribution of the respondents? All respondents in all regions indicated
that their policy allows manual flying but within limitations.

Yes No
Africa (AFI) 122 51
Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 727 215
North Asia (NASIA) 75 22
Commonwealth of Independent State (CIS) 51 9
Europe (EUR) 897 549
Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 865 372
Latin America and Caribbean (LATAM/CAR) 453 186
North America (NAM) 142 65
This question asked the participants to provide information on the manual handling policy with the specific
limitations. 2,275 provided free text. Using the IATA Accident Classification Taxonomy (see Appendix), we can
cluster the free-text answers about limitations as follows:
Threat Category Responses
600 E01.01 Adverse Weather 360

500
E01.02 Poor Visibility 559
# of Responses
400
E01.03 Gusty Conditions - Windshear - Wake
300 93
Turbulence
200
100
E01.04 Icing Conditions 1
0 E03 Air Traffic Services 11

E01.03 Gusty Conditions -…
E03 Air Traffic Services
E08 Traffic
B04 Crew Incapacitation

A01 Aircraft Malfunction
E07 Terrain/Obstacles
A03 Operation pressure

A04 Cabin events
B01 Fatigue
P04 Briefings
E01.01 Adverse Weather
E01.02 Poor Visibility
E01.04 Icing Conditions
E07 Terrain/Obstacles 9
E08 Traffic 78
A03 Operation pressure 0
A04 Cabin events 0
B04 Crew Incapacitation 1
A01 Aircraft Malfunction 31
B01 Fatigue 80
P04 Briefings 40

Out of 2,275 responses, the above threat categories were mentioned 1,263 times.
50
Competencies (not including FPA/FPM)
45
KNO 2
40
35 APK 47
# of Responses
30
COM 12
25
20 LTW 26
15
PSD 33
10
5 SAW 37
0
KNO APK COM LTW PSD SAW WLM WLM 39
8.6% of respondents mentioned a competency in their response.
450
Phases of Flight
400
350
CLIMB 180
300 CRUISE 77
# of Responses
250
DESCENT 94
200
APPROACH 404
150
100
50
0
Climb Cruise Descent Approach
33.2% of respondents mentioned a tagged phrase related to a phase of flight in their response.
Some respondents reported that the use of Flight Directors (FD) is always mandatory, while others reported that
flight crew can decide about the use of desired levels of automation. Furthermore, from the voluntary comments
received, it was apparent that there are certain restrictions to disconnect the autopilot (AP), Auto-Thrust/Throttle
(A/T[HR]) and the FDs; these restrictions are related to visibility, flight level, airspace procedures, and type of
approach:
Additionally, general context encourages greater use of automation, as autopilot use is mandatory in areas such as
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) airspace. Performance-based Navigation (PBN) and/or Automatic
Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) are also designed to allow the use of automation. Furthermore,
congested airspace and operating to an unfamiliar airport call for solutions that can be addressed by using
automation. Also, due to the implementation of the complexity of the Area Navigation (RNAV), Standard Arrivals
(STAR) and Standard Instrument Departures (SID) which have replaced many conventional procedures at airports
globally, the dense traffic situation in terminal areas, and strict noise abatement procedures, many of the
respondents indicated that they are not in favor of hand flying, at least from a workload management perspective.

The other aspect quoted by respondents about manual flying practice is the fear of adverse attention from
management, even if manuals give the impression to encourage manual operation.
Quotes extracted from the survey:
▪ Auto thrust and FD shall remain engaged at all time unless SOP or a failure dictate otherwise.
▪ From ground to 10000 feet, during high workload, keep auto thrust and FDs on.
▪ It allows but does not support. Stable approach criteria are used as limitations which is clearly acceptable
however, above answer dominates operations.
▪ FDM is used to punish pilots. No one takes risks flying manually. Autopilot is used ALWAYS from 200 ft on
departure to 500 ft on arrival and there are so many pilots without previous experience in manual flying.
▪ Manual flying below FL100 is allowed. Higher levels only due to equipment failure/temporarily.
▪ Airspace with strict limitations of heading, altitude and speed.
▪ VMC landings with type of approach restrictions. Example: autopilot Off/autothrust ON during non-precision
app without vertical guidance.
▪ Crew fatigue, type of approach, restricted visibility (2000 meters), low ceiling (400 ft.), limited to final
approach, no raw data approach.
▪ Manual flying is discouraged. Prohibited above 10000, no AP + FD off at one time. Raw data approaches
prohibited; visual approaches prohibited unless no other option. No other approach allowed if ILS is
serviceable and available.
▪ No manual flying above 10,000’. A/THR OFF not allowed. Raw data approaches not allowed. I don’t think the
company supports manual flying.
▪ Manual flying is only allowed below 10000’, only Autopilot OFF (Auto thrust must be ON), no “raw data” when
manual flying. Airline does not support manual flying. Instructors do not “recommend” it.
▪ Flight director should be used unless it’s providing incorrect guidance. Raw data ILS only permitted in VMC
conditions
▪ Manual Flight is allowed below 10 000 FT, nevertheless punitive culture doesn’t promote the manual flight.
▪ Any safety incident or flight data event involving manual flying, where automated flying was an option, will be
dealt with punitively. The manuals give the impression of encouraging manual operation, but the safety
culture discourages it. Some pilots are afraid to hand fly because it increases the risk of adverse attention
from management.
Question 14: The survey respondents were asked to provide a description of their airline’s policy limitations (i.e.,
when do you engage and disengage auto pilot, autothrust, etc.?). 3,406 respondents provided comments. It is to be
noted that differences were found concerning autopilot use.
Question 14: Could you provide a description of your airline’s policy

limitations (i.e., when do you engage and disengage auto pilot, autothrust,
etc.)?
The main points highlighted from the comments to this question are that they:
▪ Disengage autopilot when the runway is insight and that they are fully configured for landing.
▪ Can hand fly only below FL100.
▪ Only allowed when congested traffic is not an issue and at captain’s discretion.
▪ Engage autopilot shortly after takeoff and should be disengaged as late as possible on approach. The
maximum/appropriate use of automation is always recommended.

Furthermore, some respondents reported that they:
▪ Do not have limitations with regards to manual handling, the only limitations they have are the stable
approach criteria and operation in RVSM airspace.
▪ A/THR and FDs must always remain engaged unless they are unserviceable or specifically disengaged by
SOP or checklist action.
▪ Fly Raw Data approaches at least once per month
▪ Auto thrust is usually recommended. Autopilot engagement is recommended for all noise sensitive airports
and for all automatic landings.
▪ Raw data on takeoff, approaches and landing are allowed except in some airports were the use of A/THR is
recommended.
▪ The only limit is that ‘normally the autopilot is engaged above FL100’. The AT is trained to be left engaged on
departures but there is no SOP. Arrivals you’d always disconnect both.
▪ The A/P should be engaged for all IFR operations unless clear of cloud and in sight of the surface.
▪ Pilots discretion but normally autopilot Should be engaged by 10000ft in climb out and not before 1000ft. In
descent there are no limitations except being outside RVSM airspace
▪ No specific limitations but passenger safety and comfort must not be compromised.
▪ Autopilot and auto throttle should be engaged and disengaged at the same time. Minimum engage height for
autopilot is 400’ height, disengage 158’ height.
▪ 1000ft after takeoff and no actually SOP regarding landing. Mostly when ac is stable and configured for
landing from personal experience
▪ Autothrust almost never disengaged, auto pilot generally disengaged when established on final or on base
leg, except for visual approaches where autopilot is disengaged on downwind with FD OFF
▪ Below RVSM airspace and categories approaches AP ON
▪ When congested traffic is not an issue and always at captain’s discretion
▪ For takeoff, autopilot must be engaged before transition level. For landing, no limitation for usage of
autopilot. Autothrust must always be used in all phases of flight.
Question 15: Please select the items corresponding to your airline's policy with regards to automation and manual
flying (including autothrust and/ or flight-directors off). The distribution of the 4,044 responses is as follows. This
question allowed the participants to check more than one answer, hence the numbers are higher than the number
of survey respondents. Percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant was able
to select more than one answer.

232 RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT THEIR COMPANY DO NOT HAVE A POLICY
Question 15: Please select the items corresponding to your airline's policy
with regards to automation and 2,500
manual flying (including autothrust 2,000
and/ or flight-directors off).
# of Responses
1,500
1,000
Autopilot should be engaged as soon as 1,238
possible after takeoff and should be 500
disengaged as late as possible (e.g., at
0
the minima) on approach
(OEM) policy described in…

pilot proficiency as long…
possible after takeoff…
with no restriction except…

encouraged in your airline
No airline policy
encouraged to maintain
Equipment Manufacturer
engaged as soon as
Autopilot should be
Manual flying is encouraged to maintain 2,358
Similar to Original
Manual flying is
pilot proficiency as long as weather
Manual flying is
conditions, ATC environment, and pilot
workload can assure a safe operation
(individual risk analysis to be performed
by the flight crew)
No airline policy 232
Similar to Original Equipment 813 Answered 4,044 - Skipped 1,606

Manufacturer (OEM) policy described in
the Flight Crew Operating Manual /Flight
Crew Training Manual (FCOM/FCTM)
Manual flying is encouraged in your 507
airline with no restriction except
regulatory ones (e.g.: RVSM rules, …)
How does this compare with the regional distribution of the respondents?
The policy with respect to “Autopilot should be engaged as soon as possible after takeoff and should be
disengaged as late as possible” can be seen more with the respondents based in MENA region. One thing to draw
the attention to that if pilots are obliged to always engage the autopilot as soon as after takeoff and just before
landing; their manual flying opportunities can be diminished as their actual manual flying practice time can be
limited to just few minutes, especially in long-haul flights.
The policy related to “Manual flying is encouraged to maintain pilot proficiency as long as weather conditions, ATC
environment, and pilot workload can assure a safe operation” can be seen more with the rest of the respondents.
Pilot skills can be acquired and maintained over the course of a pilot’s career; as with any skills developed, they
need to be practiced in order to be maintained at the appropriate level of expertise.
Furthermore, several respondents mentioned that they do not have airlines policies with regards to manual
handling. If the airline SOPs and policies do not support or encourage manual flying, pilots may have difficulty
maintaining the skills needed to control the aircraft in an abnormal situation. Exacerbating the problem is that some
operators require the use of automation as much as possible to increase efficiency and to enhance the safety of
flight operations.

Autopilot should Manual flying is No airline Similar to OEM Manual flying is
be engaged encouraged policy policy encouraged
as soon as to maintain described in in your airline
possible pilot FCOM/FCTM with no
after takeoff proficiency restriction
and should as long as except
be situation regulatory
disengaged permits ones (e.g.:
as late as RVSM rules)
possible
Africa (AFI) 38 77 5 43 10
Asia Pacific 191 485 39 203 72

(ASPAC)
North Asia 25 44 10 18 2
(NASIA)
Commonwealth 13 27 4 9 5
of Independent
State (CIS)
Europe (EUR) 158 894 86 234 281
Middle East and 638 417 40 126 24

North Africa
(MENA)
Latin America 157 291 33 151 76

and Caribbean
(LATAM/CAR)
North America 20 127 16 30 38

(NAM)
Question 16: The Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) of an airline provides the framework for a smooth
interaction between pilots and the automated systems of the aircraft. It is essential to assess the level of
automation the respondents’ airline policy allows during line operations. 4,044 responded to this question. This
question allowed the participants to check more than one answer and hence the numbers are higher than the
number of survey respondents. Percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant
was able to select more than one answer.

1,026 RESPONDED INDICATED THAT THE MINIMUM LEVEL OF AUTOMATION IS NOT DESCRIBED IN
YOUR COMPANY POLICY
Question 16: What level of automation does your airline's policy allow during
line operations: 2,500
# of Responses
2,000
Autopilot (A/P) - OFF 2,011 1,500
1,000
A/P and autothrottle (autothrust – 1,158
500
A/THR) - OFF
0
A/P and A/THR and Flight-director - OFF 1,237
not described in…

The minimum level
A/P and A/THR -
A/P - OFF
A/P, A/THR and FD
Other
of automation is
The minimum level of automation is not 1,026
OFF
- OFF
described in your company policy
Other 320
Answered 4,044 - Skipped 1,606
How does this compare with the regional distribution of the respondents? The majority indicated that their SOP
allows pilots to switch the autopilot off in their daily operations.
A/P - OFF A/P and A/P, A/THR The minimum level of Other
A/THR - OFF and FD - automation is not
OFF described in your
company policy
Africa (AFI) 45 33 23 46 15
Asia Pacific 428 189 137 207 62

(ASPAC)
North Asia 40 24 13 17 9
(NASIA)
Commonwealth 18 14 8 13 6
of Independent
State (CIS)
Europe (EUR) 450 501 658 368 49
Middle East and 725 99 87 186 138

North Africa
(MENA)
Latin America 218 203 229 130 30
and Caribbean
(LATAM/CAR)
North America 88 96 82 61 12
(NAM)

The analysis of the comments, related to their airline policy, of the 320 respondents who selected “other”, indicates
that:
▪ The use of maximum automation is encouraged

▪ Some respondents reduce the level of automation or revert to manual flight operation when the automation
does not produce the expected results
▪ Automation policies vary among operators, ranging from mandating the use of full automation at all times,
except take-off and landing, to encouraging the disconnection of automation whenever possible, under
certain conditions
▪ Some indicated that they fly raw data
▪ Some of the respondents’ airlines encourage to keep A/THR- ON during normal operations, OFF only when
required by abnormal/emergency procedures
▪ The automation can be disengaged as regulated and described by FCTM/FCOM (when unable to maintain a
steady approach speed)
▪ If flying manually (with or without FD), manual thrust should be used
▪ Advised to keep the automation engaged unless it is limited by aircraft capabilities
▪ The problem is with the training methods, and not with the airline’s policies
▪ As Airbus golden rules, “Use the appropriate level of automation at all times”.
▪ We must remain in the higher level of automation, unless an emergency is encounter or landing is imminent.
▪ All approaches in conditions below CAT I weather minimums shall be planned as auto-coupled approaches
to terminate with an automatic landing or an auto-coupled go-around.
▪ Practice Raw data allows All Automations and FD OFF.
▪ FDs are not to be selected off at any stage except after being visual after a non-precision approach. During
all other stages of the flight, the FDs remain ON.
▪ Autothrust is on from takeoff till below 1500' AGL on approach. Autopilot comes on below FL100 during
climb and stays on until below 1500' AGL on approach. FD's to remain on throughout the whole flight unless
performing a non-precision approach. (To be put off only once visual with the runway.)
▪ With restrictions on NPA App, FINAL APP not authorized with FD off.
▪ Allows crews to select A/P and Flight-director OFF while leaving the A/THR ON, especially in low experience
pilots.
▪ Flight directors required at all times. Raw data flying not authorized regardless of weather conditions.
▪ There is no official policy but A/thr off approaches are unofficially frowned upon.
▪ The Company policy is to use A/P, ATHR, LNAV, VNAV.
▪ Autopilot off any time although its use is encouraged at all times. Flight director off only in VMC, on raw data
ILS or visual approach.

Question 17: Can you provide additional key elements of your airline's policy with regards to the different levels of
automation (auto thrust / auto throttle included) in line operations? 1,971 responded to this question.
Question 17: Can you provide additional key elements of your airline's policy
with regards to the different levels of automation (auto thrust / auto throttle
included) in line operations?
The main points highlighted from the comments to this question were:
▪ As indicated above, automation policies vary from one operator to another:

‒ When disengaging the AP, A/THR must also be disengaged, but arm mode is permitted on most
occasions
‒ A/THR is mandatory
▪ When converting to manual flying, pilots must conduct a proper briefing and review the tasks of the Pilot
Flying (PF) and Pilot Monitoring (PM) duties.
▪ Respondents always prefer to keep automation engaged to maintain a higher Situation Awareness (SA).
▪ Some of the respondents indicated that their airline policy encourages the use of automation but does not
specify the level of automation to be used e.g. autopilot, autothrottle, FD, LNAV/VNAV can all be used
together at the same time or separate.
▪ There are no specific airline policies, the use of any level of automation is at pilot’s discretion; their recent
experience to manual flight; i.e. it dependents upon the pilot’s attitude to risk.
Highly sophisticated automation can prove to be highly complex from a pilot’s perspective, especially if many tasks
must be performed within a limited timeframe, as in abnormal situations or high workload situations. It is essential
that pilots have a good understanding of the automation system and make the appropriate decisions when
encountering unusual situations, such as when automation fails or in an abnormal or emergency situation.
▪ When disengaging the autopilot, auto throttle must also be disengaged.

▪ The highest available level should be used where appropriate but can be disengaged in agreeable
circumstances for currency if briefed.
▪ Except regulatory exemptions are allowed all automation systems off.
▪ As high a level of automation should normally be used, stepping down the automation level when required to
perform more simple or dynamic tasks.
▪ Generally, if you disconnect autopilot you should also disconnect Autothrottle, but arm mode is permitted on
most occasions.
▪ 21 out of 88 responses in AFI region indicated that the highest level of automation should base for all
operations to maintain safety except when in fair weather condition are good, visual approaches and
▪ Speed off mode allowed to be used on approach
▪ The minimum level of automation is generally down to the MEL combined with flight crew’s discretion
dependent on the route being flown.
▪ manual takeoff without FD and AT -manual landing with AP and FD OFF, AT armed during ILS app and off
during RNAV approach -circling and raw data approach without use of automation possible
▪ You may use all the automation you have, but they request us to practice manual flight (A/P, A/THR and FD
OFF) as long the Weather, environment, traffic and cockpit workload and ATC permits. You have to be aware
of any risk involved and exercise your situation awareness.

5.3. Manual Flying
Question 18: The survey respondents were asked to provide their opinion to the following question: “Can you
describe in which situation you, as a pilot, would refrain from flying manually”. 4,365 provided free text responses.
Question 18: Can you describe in which situation you, as a pilot, would refrain
from flying manually?
It was indicated that the situations in which pilots refrain from flying manually were mainly in :
(based on the IATA Accident Classification Taxonomy)
Threat Category Responses

1800
1600
E01.01 Adverse Weather 1620
1400
E01.02 Poor Visibility 1417
# of Responses
1200
1000 E01.03 Gusty Conditions - Windshear -
231
800 Wake Turbulence
600
E01.04 Icing Conditions 64
400
200 E03 Air Traffic Services 186
0
E01.03 Gusty Conditions -…
E03 Air Traffic Services
E08 Traffic
B04 Crew Incapacitation

A01 Aircraft Malfunction
A03 Operation pressure

A04 Cabin events
B01 Fatigue
P04 Briefings
E07 Terrain/Obstacles 58
E01.01 Adverse Weather
E01.04 Icing Conditions
E08 Traffic 700
A03 Operation pressure 0
A04 Cabin events 3
B04 Crew Incapacitation 20
A01 Aircraft Malfunction 246
B01 Fatigue 567
P04 Briefings 6
Out of 4,264 responses, the above threat
categories were mentioned 5,118 times.
700
Competencies (not including FPA/FPM)
600
KNO 5
500
APK 29
# of Responses
400
COM 298
300
LTW 95
200
PSD 258
100
SAW 362
0
KNO APK COM LTW PSD SAW WLM WLM 627

38.4% of respondents mentioned a tagged phrase related to a phase of flight in their response.
500 Phases of Flight

450 CLIMB 352
400
CRUISE 294
350
# of Responses
300 DESCENT 209

250
APPROACH 471
200
150
100 30.4% of respondents mentioned a tagged phrase related to a
50
phase of flight in their response.
0
Climb Cruise Descent Approach
If we compare the airlines’ policies limitations and the pilots’ self-restrictions, weather related threats (adverse
weather and poor visibility) are predominantly quoted in both cases.
50%
Pilots Vs. Threat Category Airline Vs. Threat Category
45%
40%
35%
% of Responses
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
On the other hand, pilots’ self-restrictions lay special emphasis on Fatigue and Traffic (busy airspace) compared to
the airlines policies.

50%
Pilots Vs. Threat Category Airline Vs. Threat Category
45%
40%
35%
% of Responses
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
E01.01 Adverse
E01.03 Gusty
E01.04 Icing
E03 Air Traffic
E08 Traffic
Incapacitation
A01 Aircraft
B01 Fatigue
P04 Briefings
Malfunction
Conditions
Conditions
B04 Crew
Services
Weather
Regarding to EBT competencies, airlines put 25% of their focus on APK and KNO combined, whereas pilots only
2% - which is a huge difference.
If pilots and airlines match on SAW, there is a discrepancy regarding to WLM & LTW (pilots put about twice the
emphasis).
40%
Pilots Airline
35%
30%
25%
% of Responses
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
WLM SAW APK COM LTW PSD
Furthermore, pilots’ over-reliance on automation can be encouraged by either the automation policies or SOPs
directing pilots to generally use automation and to refrain from manual flying wherever possible.

▪ When flying in RVSM airspace; when within the TMA and vectored for the approach - all the time except when
landing under CAT 1 conditions;
▪ Departure and Arrivals at busy airports; Bad weather; Abnormal or Emergency situations; Marginal visibility;
Suspected wind shear during approach;
▪ On cruise within RVSM airspace; Severe ATC traffic;
▪ During high speed regime; Very high cross wind; Busy airspace; Late night or early morning flights;
▪ A busy terminal environment with an inexperienced FO, or if either operating pilot is feeling tired or fatigued;
▪ Emergency/Urgency; Inclement weather; High workload airspace; Fatigue; Stressed out;
▪ Low visibility; High workload environment e.g. busy airport complying multiple instructions;
▪ When I am tired (e.g. last sector of the day); when there is any other demanding situation (e.g. adverse
weather) that requires my full mental capacity;
▪ Always as per company policy and culture;
▪ fatigue; Long duty hours;
▪ low visibility and inclement weather conditions; marginal weather conditions including any risk of wind shear,
contaminated runways; Turbulent conditions;
▪ challenging approaches where automation can reduce the workload (A/T during challenging visual APCH);
Cat 2 and 3;
▪ Depending on the captain; in cruise flight, high workload;
▪ Local noise and aggressive regulations, low level sharp turns SID;
▪ IMC, fatigued, unfamiliar environment;
▪ During pilot incapacitation and lean workload periods;
▪ Flying an instrument approach in full IFR conditions;
▪ High traffic environment with high chance of go around in congested airspace or with bad weather on final
approach.
Question 19: Since more pilots flying today have little experience, or have never experienced an industry where
hand flying was, or is, the norm, unlike pilots in the past or older ones, we thought it would be essential to assess
the level of their manual flying experience in line operations. This question allows the survey participants to check
more than one answer and hence the numbers are higher than the number of survey respondents. 3,778
responded to this question. Percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant was
able to select more than one answer. This question also offered the respondents an opportunity to give comments
at the end of the question. 240 provided comments.

THE MAJORITY SELECTED THAT THEIR EXPERIENCE IN MANUAL FLYING IS DURING TAKE-OFF AND
LANDING
Question 19: What kind of recent experience of manual flying do you have in
line operations?
In good
During take-off and landing only 3,197 weather…
During approach 2,444

In VMC only
During climb / descent phase 1,696
During cruise at
During cruise at high altitude (if 168 high altitude…
applicable)
During climb /
In VMC only 917 descent phase
In good weather conditions only 1,352 During

approach
In daytime only 433
During take-off
and landing…
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

# of Responses
From the comments, it is indicated, by several respondents, that they used to practice manual flying more in the
past than nowadays. Few have indicated that they have not hand flown for at least a year now. Although, other
indicated that they usually practice hand flying whenever the conditions permit, others indicated that they hand fly
all the time irrespective of time or condition. The main reasons for this being the pilot’s personal satisfaction in
performing manual flying tasks, the requirement to perform manual flying exercises during simulator sessions and
the need to be able to manually fly the aircraft.
The Cruise phase at high altitude is rarely quoted related to manual flying (168 respondents).
▪ During SIDS I may fly manually until FL100. I seldom disconnect in descent until on final unless visually
manoeuvring.
▪ Cruise without autothrust, AP on
▪ Usually AP OFF from T/O until 10,000 AGL and raw data from 10,000 AGL to Landing
▪ Day and night in VMC and clear conditions
▪ I have experience on manual flying in every context, excluding LVO.
▪ Always manually for T/O and LDG. Occasionally for longer during clb and dec but generally only below
10,000' and for the purpose of personal proficiency. Only during favorable weather conditions. Simulator
▪ No recent experience at all. The company rules do not allow you to fly the aircraft manually. At least Auto
Thrust has to be on, even with the AP off.
▪ Within the airline limitations, the opportunity to manually fly is exercised as frequently as possible in order to
maintain basic skill.

▪ I try to fly one raw data ILS approach every few months for practice. Usually manually fly approach if able in
actual conditions based on level of fatigue and weather. I.e. first leg is 800 OVC I’ll hand fly. After 6 legs late
at night down to mins, I’ll let the AP fly it to mins.
▪ During gusty/windy approaches, always manual flight incl manual thrust, esp monsoon
▪ Never on departure, due to the busy airspace. On approach usually, I disengage the A/P at 1,000 ft.
▪ We used to fly manually from takeoff to around FL180 and then again from 10,000ft MSL to the runway in all
but IMC to an instrument approach. That has changed and now we fly manually in good weather but utilize
the autopilot more in IMC and in high task load phases of flight.
▪ In all honesty, I admit that I do generally avoid hand flying in IMC, except occasionally I do hand fly an ILS
approach with weather comfortably above Cat I minimums. However, I do fly, on average, between 4 and 8
Cat III ILS approaches (manually with HUD) per year.
▪ I hand fly every leg to 15,000’ and every decent and landing from 5,000’ to touchdown.
▪ I try to encourage the F/O to hand fly as much as possible, if the weather is above Cat 1 and the crosswind is
not limiting. I also normally try to hand fly below 5000’ both in climb out and descent, local procedures
notwithstanding.
▪ As a training captain, I encourage to switch off A/P within company limitations and fly manually on some
occasions below 10,000 ft on takeoff/climb and descend/approach phase. On some certain occasions I
encourage to keep the A/P on, e.g. busy terminal environment, marginal weather conditions, or after ling
duty.
▪ As an "Old School" pilot I had plenty of manual flying experience at the beginning of my career, including
freedom to hand fly wide-bodies at my previous airline (VARIG), but the last 12 years as expat pilot following
the Middle Eastern British/Australian/Asian mentality, these opportunities have been drastically reduced.
99% of my colleagues, and also management see manual flight as a safety risk EVEN at the same time
admitting that the lack of it also creates a potential safety risk
European-based respondents are the ones who have more experience in manual handling on the approach than
any other flight phase. North American respondents have reported the same experience on takeoff/ landing and
during climb and descent. The rest of the respondents’ manual handling experience is only during takeoff and
landing. All respondents have less experience in manual handling during cruise at high altitude.

During During During During cruise In In good In
take-off approach climb / at high altitude VMC weather daytime
and descent (if applicable) Only conditions only
landing phase only
only
Africa (AFI) 101 73 45 8 37 37 8
Asia Pacific 627 475 346 34 201 295 75

(ASPAC)
North Asia 66 52 32 3 27 30 15
(NASIA)
Commonwealth 35 19 14 1 6 16 11
of Independent
State (CIS)
Europe (EUR) 877 943 715 74 260 383 128
Middle East and 938 406 198 8 170 292 66

North Africa
(MENA)
Latin America 413 321 206 16 171 243 105
and Caribbean
(LATAM/CAR)
North America 140 155 140 24 45 56 25
(NAM)
Question 20: The purpose of this question is to find out when flight crew typically engage the autopilot on
departure. 3,677 provided comments.
Question 20: When do you typically engage the autopilot on departure?

The main points highlighted from the comments to this question were that flight levels varied between one
operator to another. The minimum altitude for autopilot engagement was generally the acceleration height or
around 400 AGL or 500 AGL, though as mentioned this can vary between operators. A good number of the survey
respondents flew until the first level off or until climbing and accelerating through 10,000 feet. To be more specific,
respondents mentioned that they engage autopilot somewhere between 5,000 and 10,000 feet, or earlier and
during complex SIDs. The respondents also reported that there are certain factors that can play a role in their
decision making to engage/disengage automation; such factors are congested traffic, weather conditions,
workload, captain’s decision, pilot incapacitation, FO experience, etc.
Question 21: The objective of this question is to know when pilots typically disengage the autopilot on approach.
3,681 responded to this question.
Question 21: When do you typically disengage the autopilot on approach?

The respondents varied in their responses, however the majority stated that they disconnect autopilot in reference
to an altitude (generally 1,000 feet before touchdown if the condition at the time permits), i.e. good weather, normal
traffic, being stable, visual conditions, etc. Also, it was stated that they disconnect the autopilot when they intersect
with the localizer/glideslope and in accordance to the minimum altitudes, which are given in the aircraft operating
limitations.

Question 22: As it is important to practice flying without the autopilot / auto throttle / flight director to maintain
proficiency in basic flying skills, we asked the survey participants to answer in percentage, how many approaches
they fly with limited automation?
Question 22: Among the sectors that you fly, how many approaches (in %)
do you fly with limited automation?
Autopilot (A/P) Off Of the 3,276 responses, 614 participants said 0% while 526 said 100%
and 263 said 10%
A/P and auto throttle (auto thrust – Of the 3,155 responses, 1,375 participants said 0% while 236 said 5%
A/THR) Off and 237 said 10%
A/P and A/THR and Flight director Of the 3,113 responses, 1,650 participants said 0% while 283 said 5%
Off said 271 said 10%
Question 23: Nowadays, it is to be believed that commercial airline pilot handling skills have declined because of
the use of automation. As seen throughout this survey, pilots flying with commercial airlines only fly manually for
the first and last few minutes of each flight. The intent of this question was to find out the respondents’ opinion on
manual flying practice, if it is becoming less important. 3,778 responded to this question. Percentages were not
calculated for this question because the same participant was able to select more than one answer. The majority
selected that they never really believed that manual flying practice is becoming less important. This question also
offered the respondents an opportunity to provide their opinion at the end of the question. 216 provided
comments. Many of the respondents believe the contrary, that manual flying practice is important.
THE MAJORITY SELECTED THAT THEY BELIEVE 2.48% 10.93%

MANUAL FLYING PRACTICE IS IMPORTANT 6.20%
With the level of
automation
Question 23: Do you believe that installed
manual flying practice becomes less With increased

experience
important?
Never
With the level of automation installed 423
With increased experience 240 80.39% Don't Know
Never 3,111
Don't Know 96
From the comments received, most respondents believe that manual flying practice is important and that it should
not be replaced by simulator specific training.
While most respondents recognize the importance of maintaining manual flying skills, they believe that an
integrated approach covering initial, recurrent simulator training as well as manual flying during line operation is
needed. Enough time in simulator training should be allocated to foster the development and maintain these skills,
specifically in the recognition of failed or contradictory instrumentation. They also believe that operators should
have a company policy regarding manual flying. Manual flying practice shall be considered every time the
conditions allows it, with of course strict monitoring skills.

▪ Proficiency in manual flying will always be important in the event that flying with automation becomes
unavailable due to mechanical failure, emergency situation, or airport with limited approach capability.
▪ It is a very important skill that must be kept up.
▪ Obviously, automation failure but also, it’s the most enjoyable part of the job!
▪ Companies encourage manual approaches but monitoring criteria by company seems to discourage in case
these limits are exceeded.
▪ Very important, and it’s the part of the job that I enjoy the most.
▪ Manual flying skills are always important and if not frequently practiced do become rusty.
▪ Pilots must keep their manual flying skills high for when automation fails. Regular practice is essential.
▪ Manual flying proficiency is fading especially among pilots whose sole experience is with 4 gen a/c, no
wonder why LOC-I has become number 1 category killer in commercial aviation.
▪ Modern commercial operations rely on automation and technology being used within their design, such as
GLS or RNAV approaches so manual flight becomes less important in normal operations.
▪ I firmly believe that manual handling and instrument scan should be practiced more often. We should be able
to hand fly without any automation if the situation allows it.
▪ I personally believe manual flying should be encouraged. Nowadays pilots rely too much on automation and
loose basic manual flying skills.
Question 24: The intent of this question was to determine if the automated cockpit environment has any effect on
flight crew coordination? 3,778 responded to this question. The majority reported that the use of automation has
an impact on flight crew coordination. This question also offered the respondents an opportunity to provide their
comments at the end of the question. 2,208 provided comments.
77% BELIEVE THAT THE USE OF AUTOMATION HAS AN IMPACT ON FLIGHT CREW COORDINATION
Question 24: Does the use of automation have any impact on flight crew
coordination?
22.87%
No 22.87% 864
Yes 77.13% 2,914
77.13%
No Yes
One should note that one-third of the respondents skipped the question.
Pilots quote WLM (375%) as a key competency to succeed in this area. Other competencies as SAW and COM are
cited less frequently.

40%
35%
30%
25%
% of Responses
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
WLM SAW APK COM LTW PSD
Some of the main comments from the respondents with regards to automation are as follows:
▪ Automation provides better monitoring, cross checking, communication and coordination but reduces the
level of manual flying skills, and hence reduces the confidence to fly the aircraft without automation.
▪ Automation changes the allocation of tasks within the cockpit. Flying with automation (AP/FD/ATHR)
increases the capacity of monitoring for the PM.
▪ Some respondents believe that the use of automation increases situation awareness, especially in high
demanding situations. While other respondents believe that automation can reduce crew situation
awareness because of the feeling that the aircraft can do everything by itself.
▪ Automation can increase workload especially during emergency and non-normal situations.
▪ The advanced automated systems generate new challenges, such as complacency and overconfidence.
▪ Automation enhances safety and increases situation awareness when workload is high, operating in
congested airspace, in bad weather, operating to new airports and with new flight crew, etc.
▪ Automation decreases manual flying skills, in particular, in Generation 4 aircraft, which are more likely
operated with the highest degree of automation.
Some of the main comments from the respondents with regards to manual flying are as follows:
▪ Manual flying can lead to a lack of crew coordination. It can also increase workload and the level of stress in
the cockpit.
▪ Manual flying helps maintain proficiency in situations that exclude the operationality of the autoflight
systems.
▪ Manual skills can deteriorate without regular practice.
Some of the recommendations provided by the respondents are:
▪ Both crew members should have a good knowledge of the aircraft automation.
▪ Pilots should not be discouraged to hand fly the aircraft; they should be encouraged to hand fly in sectors
where the workload expected is compatible with the pilots’ personal limitations.
▪ Increasing confidence in hand flying is obtained through training and practice.
▪ Proper training, robust SOPs, efficient CRM will mitigate the impact when transitioning to manual handling.

▪ Pilots are losing the ability to better coordinate the tasks during manual operations. The PM gets overloaded
by the PF’ demands. The pilots are forgetting to study the manual flight SOP, call outs, etc.
▪ Automation, if used wisely, can help the flight crew focus more on ATC, weather avoidance, etc.
▪ As you rely more and more on automation, workload is reduced thus coordination may relax.
▪ AP on is better coordination. Manual flying takes mental energy.
▪ The lack of automation is a great training tool for new first officers as it forces them to be assertive in the
cockpit as the PF's hand are full flying the plane. If errors have been made, they are able to understand better
the reasons as to why they happened. It helps improve their confidence.
▪ Good training and understanding of auto systems will result in good coordination.
▪ Due to our company policy, the amount of practice that, especially inexperienced pilots get, is so minimal
that it leads to a reduction in safety margins, i.e., when the automation fails or during crosswind landings.
▪ Flight deck automation has provided significant benefits, such as economic efficiency, increased precision
and safety, and enhanced functionality within the crew interface. These enhancements, however, may have
been accrued at a price, such as complexity added to crew/automation interaction that has been implicated
in a number of aircraft incidents and accidents.
It is important to note that if pilots do not fully understand the aircraft’s automated system, are unsure about its
behaviour and/or have poor monitoring of the level of automation, this can lead to loss of mode awareness and
reduced situation awareness.
Question 25: The intent of this question was to understand if hand flying has an impact on flight crew coordination.
3,731 responded to this question. This question also offered the respondents an opportunity to provide their
comments at the end of the question. 2,346 respondents provided comments.
82% REPORTED THAT HAND FLYING HAS AN IMPACT ON FLIGHT CREW COORDINATION
Question 25: Does flying manually have any
impact on flight crew coordination? 18.49%
No 18.49 % 690
Yes 81.51 % 3,041

81.51%
No Yes
Some of the main comments from the respondents with regards to manual flying are as follows:
▪ Hand flying increases workload, especially for the PM with consequences on monitoring effectiveness.
▪ Hand flying reduces mental capacity and hence the ability to interact and communicate effectively.
▪ Hand flying may decrease situation awareness in complex situations and lower safety margins.
▪ Delegation of tasks may be overlooked especially in high workload environments or in challenging situations.
Communication between the flight crew may break down because of their focus on the aircraft parameters -
that's where proper briefing comes in and pilots’ good judgement to assess the proper level of automation
that should be used.

▪ Flying manually sharpens senses for aircraft reactions, energy management and increases self confidence in
own capabilities in non-normal situations.
▪ Flight Crew are accustomed to automation, so when automation is not used, they can easily become
confused.
▪ SOPs are usually tailored for Auto flights, the lack of encouragement and proficiency in manual handling can
cause confusion.
▪ Less automation usually means a slightly higher workload for both crew members, thus less capacity for
checklists, briefings, etc.
Furthermore, as seen throughout the survey, one of the advantages of automation is the reduction of workload. But
in non-normal situations, pilots can become task saturated.
Some of the recommendations provided by the respondents are:
▪ All flight crew must be well coordinated and should be in the loop.
▪ A good level of flight crew coordination during manual flying can be achieved through proper training and
briefing.
▪ Operators’ standard operating procedures related to manual flying should be well established, and flight
crew should be well prepared and briefed.
▪ Increases pilot's confidence and handling, will improve flight safety when converting to manual flying.
▪ The PF has less capacity, and so will likely reach task saturation sooner than PNF. Practice hand flying
increases spare capacity.
▪ Increases workload for both pilots. Largely because I don’t believe we do it enough.
▪ Increases workload especially for PM, reduces effectiveness of monitoring.
▪ High workload reduces the ability to communicate.
▪ Takes away concentration from monitoring other aspects of the flight, such as flight path or ATC
communication.
▪ While flying manually more attention is diverted to aircraft handling, therefore less spare capacity to monitor
different aspects of the operation.
▪ Crew are used to flying with auto pilot on, when they have to fly manual, there is a momentary confusion on
the PM’s side, in the manipulation of switches and knobs, as now the PF is flying manually.
▪ Flying your airplane frequently and recurrently helps growing your basic flying skills and thus your self-
confidence and means less stress. Eventually it sets free extra situation awareness capacity which might
help in dealing with more challenging situations.
Question 26: This question asked respondents to rank the factors that may lead to degradation of manual flying
competency, with the most important being 1. The most important factors leading to degradation of manual flying
competency were associated with issues related to airline policies that direct the pilots to use automated systems
over manual flying, fatigue, and lack of practice. 3,425 responded to this question.

Question 26: Please rank the factors that may lead to degradation of manual
flying competency, with the most important being 1.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Airline policies that direct the 5.25% 14.67% 11.08% 8.77% 7.49% 7.49% 8.05% 7.18%
pilots to use automated
systems over manual flying 1,129 470 355 281 240 240 258 230
OEM operational policy in 2.80% 14.03% 10.22% 9.59% 12.14% 13.72% 15.85% 21.64%
regard to automation
89 446 325 305 386 436 504 688
Fatigue 17.07% 11.09% 15.64% 12.89% 12.14% 11.12% 9.42% 10.63%
551 358 505 416 392 359 304 343

Inadequate training 8.55% 15.03% 14.72% 19.49% 13.51% 12.26% 8.80% 7.64%
274 482 472 625 433 393 282 245

Overreliance on automation 11.47% 14.60% 15.34% 14.88% 17.02% 12.55% 8.99% 5.15%
370 471 495 480 549 405 290 166

Crew Resource Management 2.16% 5.68% 9.13% 12.10% 17.28% 22.25% 16.85% 14.56%
e.g. Captain reluctant to
downgrade the level of 70 184 296 392 560 721 546 472
automation when the first
officer would like to practice
Lack of understanding of 0.38% 6.68% 10.37% 11.10% 13.11% 13.94% 24.21% 18.21%
automation modes and/or
workload management during 78 219 340 364 430 457 794 597
manual handling
Lack of practice 22.60% 19.45% 14.77% 11.77% 7.89% 5.34% 5.69% 12.49%
762 656 498 397 266 180 192 421
Question 27: We wanted to know how often the respondents have encountered an unstable approach as a result
of manual flying in the past 5 years, and how often did that result in a missed approach; and if this was managed
using automation or manually flown. 3,190 responded to this question. The responses varied and were not specific
or clear in regard to the number of missed approaches and/or go-arounds.
Question 27: How often have you encountered an unstable approach as a

result of manual flying in the past 5 years, and how often did that result in a
missed approach; and was this managed using automation or manually
flown.
The main points highlighted are:
▪ A very good number of respondents confirmed that they had never encountered unstable approaches due
to manual handling in the last 5 years.
▪ Those who encountered unstable approaches reported that they were not due to manual handling but to
other factors, such as inexperienced flight crew, aircraft management, configuration, poor planning, late ATC
clearance and/or unclear ATC instructions, adverse weather conditions, turbulence, change of aircraft fleet

and airline policies that either provide for strict maintenance of stabilization criteria, thus giving very little
room to set the pilot up for an unstable approach or do not encourage manual handling.
▪ Spatial disorientation, fatigue, poor judgement and lack of practice of manual handling also were factors
contributing to their unstable approaches that ended up in missed approaches.
▪ Several respondents reported that their unstable approaches / missed approaches were mainly due to
automation. It is to be believed that it is not the automation itself but the failure to monitor automation (FMC,
ILS, A/THR, etc.) or the lack of adequate understanding of the automation.
Respondents do not make any direct link between manual flying and unstable approaches. The main contributing
factors to unstable approaches remain: unexperienced pilots, poor aircraft management, failure to appropriately
monitor automation, late ATC clearances, etc.
▪ Zero unstable approaches due to manual flying / 0 G/A (1 G/A due to wake turbulence of preceding aircraft
during AP/ATHR/FD OFF approach -> not a manual flying problem).
▪ You are more likely to have an unstable approach using automation because sometimes automation doesn't
work well.
▪ Encountered unstable approaches for other reasons.
▪ Usually the manual part comes as an intervention to not being able to correctly use automation and
managing it in a timely manner.
▪ All my missed approaches were due to bad weather/poor ATC/poor descend planning. I never had to
perform a missed approach due to a manual unstable approach.
▪ Manual flying is not a common practice in the airline.
▪ Three unstable approaches using automation resulted in go around. No unstable approach as a result of
manual flying because it is never practiced in line operations.
▪ Flying manually is the best way to achieve a target. Automation is quite slow in some situations.
▪ As a matter of fact, I've seen more automatic than manual unstable approaches, because the use of autopilot
does not replace good planning skills (you can reach final app. with too much speed and/or altitude and still
have A/P and A/T on...).
▪ As a result of manual flying...none. As a result of over reliance on automation twice and both did not result in
a missed approach. They were resolved due to manual flying.
▪ Not that often but on the other side, manual flying helped us avoid a go around due to a very bad vectors to
approach.
▪ Very often the lack of practice of hand flying ends up in a missed approach.
▪ It is not very often, but the last time I had an unstable approach was flown using automation.
Question 28: The aim of this question was to understand if pilots are reluctant to disengage the autopilot and hand
fly the aircraft. Of the 3,452 responses, 37% of the respondents confirmed they hesitate to disengage the autopilot
and take over manual control. Furthermore, in order to understand why pilots are reluctant to intervene with
automated systems and disengage the autopilot, we offered the respondents an opportunity to provide their
comments at the end of the question. 1,382 provided comments.

63% REPORTED THAT THEY ARE NOT RELUCTANT TO DISENGAGE THE AUTOPILOT
Question 28: Have you ever been reluctant to
disengage the autopilot?
36.76%
No 63.24% 2,183
Yes 36.76% 1,269

63.24%
Nearly 40% of the respondents skipped the question about

preference to keep automation engaged. No Yes
Their hesitations to disengage auto pilot are highlighted below:

▪ When flight crew is fatigued, after long night flight, in low visibility, busy environment, high workload,
operating on new fleet, complex approaches, challenging environmental conditions and/or late ATC
clearance
▪ Due to flight crew performance, experience and/or judgment at that time
▪ Pilots have more confidence in the automation than they do in manual handling skills
▪ Flight crew are discouraged to fly manually due to their company policy;
▪ When flight crew are operating in IMC and in the presence of the environmental factors that might increase
operational complexity;
▪ Due to the company blame policy and the punitive culture in their company;
▪ Due to FOQA Parameters, exceedance is not allowed.
Based on the voluntary comments from the respondents, the survey highlighted that some pilots were reluctant to
intervene due to strict company policy and culture, long night sector flight and fatigue, as well as poor weather,
strong wind and low visibility. In addition to the above, some concerns were about the increasing workload. Finally,
poor training and lack of manual flight experience were also emphasized.
▪ Uncomfortable flying manually due to lack of training or fatigue.

▪ Because of fatigue, bad wx, bad ATC, not encouraged by company, fellow crewmembers uncomfortable with
it.
▪ Challenging environmental conditions, reluctant captain, fatigue.
▪ Fatigue and the stress of being called into the office and of being issued a warning letter.
▪ Where busy airspace/airport /fatigue.
▪ CRM factors were an issue.
▪ I am confident in my manual flying skills however the permission for more manual flying is essential.
▪ Due to lack of self-confidence. The list shown with an order of reasons that prevents manual flying e.g.: lack
of practice caused by airline policy that prevents this; CRM factors that cause a Capt not to allow an FO to fly
manually.
▪ In some situations, I will be reluctant - but may increase my vigilance of autopilot behaviour. For example, on
an ILS approach in VMC, the critical areas are not protected. Surface movements may cause interference
with LOC or GS signals. If TWR cautioned us, I would be reluctant to commence manual handling. If
oscillations were observed, I would guard controls but leave autopilot engaged, unless it became
“necessary” to disengage. Manually flying increases my workload, and I am likely already tired, or starting a
long duty.
▪ Have made conscious effort to maintain manual flying skills and maintain scan rate. Aim to hand fly an
approach from 10000’ conditions permitting, on the line, once a week on average. It is a skill to look through

the automation and it must be practiced. I have looked through flight directors’ numerous times when I can
see it was not appropriate for the conditions.
▪ The airline company’s strong support for automation and dislike of manual flying creates captains who fear
manual flying.
▪ I feel comfortable flying manually on (long) final or during departure. I must admit that flying a complete
approach by hand from say 10,000ft with stepdown would feel somewhat challenging because of a lack of
practice.
▪ When you feel the aircraft is not doing what you expect it to do then disengage and fly manually while PM
reprograms the FMS.
▪ I was thinking that the Captain would criticize my manual flying skills.
▪ I simply do not disengage the A/P since it is not allowed, and any exceedance would be greatly punished.
▪ In strong, gusty winds in addition to moderate turbulence in the terminal area whilst on approach. The
temptation is to let the automation handle it for as long as possible. But there is also the danger of
disconnecting too late and not having enough time to get to grips with the manual handling of the aircraft in
the above-mentioned conditions.
▪ FOQA deviations are a NO GO in our policy.
Question 29: The purpose of this question was to know if pilots disengage or keep all automations engaged in an
event of loss of situation awareness. 3,452 responded to this question (and 2198 skipped the question). Most of
the survey respondents reported that they keep automation engaged in such situation.
79% REPORTED THAT THEY KEEP AUTOMATION ENGAGED IN AN EVENT OF LOSS OF SITUATION
AWARNESS
Question 29: With autopilot engaged, in the
case that situation awareness is lost, and 20.54%
until situation is recovered; do you prefer to:
Disengage all automation (AP, FD, 20.54% 709

ATHR) and fly manually
Keep automation engaged 79.46% 2,743 79.46%
Disengage all automation and fly manually

Keep automation engaged

Question 30: We wanted to know the reason why they prefer to keep the automation engaged. 2,718 responded to
this question (but 2,932 skipped the question). The majority reported that they keep the automation engaged to
reduce workload.
96% OF THE RESPONDENTS REPORTED THAT THEY KEEP AUTOPILOT ENGAGED TO REDUCE
WORKLOAD
Question 30: If you prefer keeping 100%
automation engaged, is it: 80%
# of Responses
60%
to reduce workload 96.14% 2,613 40%
20%
due to lack of confidence in your 5.70% 155
manual flying 0%
to reduce due to lack of Others to
Others to specify 8.65% 235
workload confidence specify
in your
manual flying
The main point from the comments received under the category “Others” with regards to why they keep the
automation engaged is “company policy and consequences”:
Other reasons are:
▪ To be able to scan, evaluate the situation, and monitor more

▪ To achieve a better situation awareness
▪ Fatigue
▪ There are different cases where I would disconnect everything such as in unreliable speed indication,
however on the other hand, there are situations where I would keep the automation engaged, such as
encountering severe turbulence. The manuals are quite clear on this kind of topic.
▪ If the plane is flying normally but the pilots have lost SA disengaging the autopilot will lead to two pilots with
degraded SA trying to fly a plane manually without understanding what is going on, possibly making matters
worse. If the automation is the source of confusion, then resorting to manual flight may be the best option. It
depends on the situation, but initially I would say do nothing until you have figured out what’s going on.
▪ If situation awareness is lost, it is most important to regain the overview. If the situation awareness has been
lost in regard to the state of the automation, I would switch the whole automation off.
▪ I would rather downgrade automation a level, instead of going completely raw data. If situation calls for it, I
would not hesitate to disconnect and maintain wings level, pitch and power adequate for the flight phase
until I can regain SA.
▪ There is a reason for pilots to lose situation awareness. In that case leave automation ON during the time
needed to regain control of the situation.
▪ Spare more capacity to analyse the situation and regain situation awareness.

5.4. Training Policy
Question 31: We called for comments on the best way to improve manual handling skills, e.g., using the aircraft
with FD only. 2,493 provided comments.
Question 31: What do you think is the best way to improve manual handling
skills? For example, using the aircraft with FD only.
The main comments highlighted the following:
▪ The respondents expressed the need that airlines develop and implement a non-punitive environment.
▪ Respondents expressed the need to urge airlines to embed the opportunity for pilots to practice, when
appropriate, manual flying in their respective policies.
▪ Pilots are aware of the need for manual aircraft control training and clearly expressed this need when
responding to the survey.
▪ More manual handling practice dedicated in simulator training and in line operations.
▪ Operators should ensure that their pilots have the manual handling skills and confidence to take control of
the aircraft if automation does not perform as expected.
▪ Respondents have also expressed their interest to go back to basics, practice on raw data flying with FD off.
▪ Less punitive on criteria and reporting of exceedance from flight safety department may give the pilots more
confidence to disengage.
▪ More simulator sessions with touch and go and fly with FD off at least during climb until 10000 feet.
▪ Encouraging manual flying in every phase, including cruise.
▪ Disengage A/P (and auto throttle if applicable) on approach when in sight of surface and hand fly. Delay
engaging A/P on departure.
▪ More practice and training.
▪ The best way is purely raw data flying but there is a “time and place”. FULLY BRIEFED PRIOR TO EXECUTION
with associated threats to be mitigated.
▪ A sensible policy that encourages manual flying in appropriate circumstances.
▪ Using the FD only is a good idea to increase confidence.
▪ Autopilot and auto throttle disengaged then when confident that things are well flight director off. I believe it
results in a smoother transition to manual flight.
▪ Focus more on training rather than checking during sims. Encourage manual flying in VMC.
▪ Company to encourage more manual flying practice.
▪ Flying manually where possible on the line. More training during simulator sessions - practicing manoeuvres
such as go-arounds without the use of F/D, etc.
▪ Practice in simulators, practice during line training and non-punitive environment if mistakes happen.
▪ FDA doesn’t help. Knowing you have a computer "breathing on your neck" doesn’t exactly encourage you to
perform a manual approach unless conditions are clearly favourable. Flying the A/C with F/D only would help,
but it has to be company policy.
▪ I think FDM is a big, and probably the main, reason why a lot of pilots don’t fly manually anymore. They would
rather not have that email or phone call from the safety department. “Better to stay out of trouble and under
the radar”. So many things are monitored and will be flagged if limits are broken, hence it’s easier to just let
the AFDS fly us to the FAF.
▪ Manual flying in both the departure and approach phases in order to maintain smooth, consistent handling of
the aircraft while also maintaining complete situational awareness.

Question 32: The purpose of this question was to see if and when pilots receive manual flying training? The
percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant was able to select more than one
answer. They all indicated that their initial and recurrent training allow flight crew to practice manual flying. 307
respondents however specified that their training does not include manual flying competency.
307 RESPONDENTS SPECIFIED THAT THEIR TRAINING DOES NOT INCLUDE MANUAL FLYING
COMPETENCY
Question 32: In which training 3,000
session(s) does your airline 2,500

specifically train manual flying
# of Responses
2,000
competency?
1,500
Initial Training 2,211 1,000
Recurrent Training 2,716 500
None 307 0
Initial Training Recurrent Training None
The respondents indicated that it is more in the recurrent training sessions than in initial training that they train the
FPM competency. It should also be noted that 307 respondents indicated that the FPM competency is not trained
at all in simulator sessions.
Question 33: This question asked the respondents to specify the percentage of time that is dedicated to manual
flying in recurrent training. 3,031 respondents to this question. Also, this question gave the respondents the
possibility to provide the amount of time dedicated to manual flying competency training if not specified in the
table below. 1,255 provided comments.
33% REPORTED THAT THE ALLOCATED TIME IS BETWEEN 10 TO 20% OF THEIR TRAINING
Question 33: Please specify the percentage of time that is dedicated to
manual flying in recurrent
training. 35%
30%
25%
% of Responses
Less than 10% 27.15% 823

20%
Between 10 to 20% 32.53% 986
15%
Between 20 to 30% 21.45% 650 10%
5%
More than 30% 18.87% 572
0%
Less than Between 10 Between 20 More than
10% to 20% to 30% 30%

The majority indicated that the amount of time allocated to such training was less than an hour per training session;
to be more specific, the respondents indicated that the time allocated is about 30 minutes.
Question 34: We wanted to know in which flight phase pilots receive manual flying training. 3,058 responded to this
question. The percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant was able to select
more than one answer. There is a significant low figure regarding the cruising phase: the paradox is that CRZ phase
is the less trained in simulator and the less trained in operations (due to legacy restrictions).
MANUAL FLYING TRAINING IS NOTABLY STRONGER IN APPROACH / GO-AROUND, LANDING, AND

TAKEOFF
Question 34: When performing manual flying training, which flight phases are
trained?
3,500
Take off 2,532 3,000

2,500
Climb 1,240 2,000
Cruise 542 1,500

1,000
Descend 988
500
Approach / Go-around 2,918 0
Take off Climb Cruise Descend Approach /
Landing 2,872 Go-around
Question 35: We wanted to know in which operational conditions pilots receive manual flying training. 3,058
responded to this question. The percentages were not calculated for this question because the same participant
was able to select more than one answer. Manual flying training is performed relatively in the same way in all
operational conditions.
PILOTS RECEIVE TRAINING IN ALL OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS

Question 35: When performing manual flying training, in which operational
conditions are you trained? 3,000
2,500
IMC 2,139
2,000
VMC 2,438
# of Responses
1,500
Flight Director - ON 2,290
1,000
Flight Director - OFF 2,057
500
Auto throttle auto thrust 1,953
(AT/ATHR) - ON 0
IMC VMC Flight Flight AT/ATHR AT/ATHR
Auto throttle auto thrust 2,081
Director - Director - - ON - OFF
(AT/ATHR) - OFF
ON OFF

Question 36: We wanted to know how the respondents would rate their manual flying competency. The majority
rated their manual flying competency as good.
48% OF THE 3,358 RESPONSES RATES THEIR MANUAL FLYING COMPETENCY AS GOOD
Question 36: How would you rate your manual flying competency?
60%
Very Good 19.62% 659
50%
Good 48.09% 1,615 40%
# of Responses
30%
Average 28.74% 965
20%
Weak 3.01% 101
10%
Insufficient 0.54% 18 0%
Pilots have a higher perception of their manual flying skills compared to objective data issued from EBT airlines
grading data. As pilots strongly believe that their skills are adequate/good to face day to day situations on an
aircraft, the airlines (through instructors’ observations) note that during simulator sessions the pilots’ manual flying
skills could be improved (for example in non-normal situations).
Question 37: The aim of this question was to determine in which area of manual flying they feel less competent.
3,358 responded to this question. The percentages were not calculated for this question because the same
participant was able to select more than one answer. Most of the respondents felt less competent in the areas
associated with handling failures affecting flight controls as well as high speed / high altitude handling.
THE RESPONDENTS FELT LESS COMPETENT MANAGING OR HAND FLYING THE AIRCRAFT WHEN
DEALING OR HANDLING FAILURES AFFECTING FLIGHT CONTROLS
Question 37: In which part/s of manual flying do you feel less competent?
Basic handling of pitch and 317 Upset recovery

thrust
Handling failures affecting flight
Speed / Energy 438 controls
management
High speed / high altitude handling
Take-off and landing 897
with difficult weather Low speed / low altitude handling
conditions
Take-off and landing with difficult
Low speed / low altitude 279 weather conditions
handling
Speed / Energy management
High speed / high 1,068
altitude handling Basic handling of pitch and thrust
Handling failures 1,503
affecting flight controls 0 500 1000 1500 2000
Upset recovery 718 # of Responses

Question 38: The purpose of this question was to gain more insight into the respondents opinion in regards to their
airline using flight simulation training devices (FSTD), including Full Flight Simulator (FFS), in their recurrent sessions
to train and enhance manual flying skills. 3,358 responded to this question. The majority responded yes to this
question, meaning that they would like their airline to use FSTD, including FFS, in their recurrent sessions to train
and enhance manual flying skills.
89% OF THE RESPONDENTS REPORTED

10.54%
AFFIRMATIVE
Question 38: Does your airline use
flight simulation training devices
(FSTD), including Full Flight Simulator
(FFS), in recurrent sessions to train
89.46%
and enhance manual flying skills?
No Yes
No 10.54% 354
Yes 89.46% 3,004
Moreover, we asked those respondents who answered no, to provide an explanation to support their answer: 291
provided comments. The main comments were related to:
▪ Training is not dedicated to manual handling (based on a voluntary process in some cases)
▪ Training is offered only in respect to upset recovery, non-normal situations, emergencies, malfunctions
▪ There are too many items to be covered, so manual flying takes a back seat and is not the primary focus
▪ Manual handling practice sessions involve limited raw data flying
▪ The time allocated for such training is not enough
▪ Too many items to be covered so manual flying takes a back seat.

▪ Insufficient time, as most recurrent sessions are predominated by regulatory and mandatory items.
▪ To a limited degree during recurrent training sessions, all of which are done in FFS. Also, our pilots are
permitted to book FSS when they are available. I do this 2-3 times a year to practice manual flight, no A/P,
auto throttle, or F/D. It is voluntary, some pilots do it, others not at all.
▪ Yes, we do manual approaches IMC, VMC and other manual training, such as Stall, upset recovery, steep
bank and so on.
▪ We practice visual traffics on all FFS sessions. The focus in FFS is on following procedures and emergencies.
▪ In general, the time spent with manual flying in the simulator consists of regulatory maneuvers like one
engine out takeoff and approach, TCAS and GPWS maneuvers and upset recovery, it's exclusively
mandatory time. There are occasional exceptions with some other specific TRI/TRE.
▪ Once checked to line I see the simulator 4 days a year. 2 days per session. All those sessions deal with
failures, etc., nothing about a normal Ops. Circuits or cruising, etc.

Question 39: This question aimed at getting a subjective assessment from the respondents as to whether they
believe that training in FSTD, including FFS or manual flying in line operation, can improve manual flying
competency or compensate for the lack of manual flying during line operations. 3,358 responded to this question.
MANY OF THE RESPONDENTS DISAGREED

Question 39: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following?
Training in FSTD Training in FSTD Manual flying in line
(including FFS) is (including FFS) can operations is sufficient
sufficient to enhance compensate for the lack in order to maintain or to
manual flying of manual flying during enhance manual flying
competency line operations competency
Strongly 457 502 217
Disagree
Disagree 1,267 1,130 1,038
Neutral 632 596 721
Agree 836 969 1,115
Strongly Agree 195 192 303
To better understand the reason(s) behind their response, we provided the respondents space to comment. 1,167
provided comments to support their response. The main points highlighted were that:
▪ The experience in a simulator is not the same as in an aircraft. A balance of regular line flying, and simulator
flying is required to maintain and enhance the needed skills.
▪ Confidence to downgrade the level of automation during line operations is gained in the simulator.
▪ Manual flying should be practiced in FSTD and FFS as well as line operations because simulator training does
not give the same effect as in real line operation. A combination of both is required.
▪ More time should be allocated to manual flying whether in a simulator or in real life.
▪ Manual flying in the simulator such as steep turns, approach to stall recovery and go arounds should be part
of a warmup session at the beginning.
▪ Due to the punitive culture in some of the companies, flight crews are forced to use automation.
▪ Nothing quite replicates the real aircraft. However, I find that the opportunity to practice in the SIM is good
for confidence.
▪ Simulator feeling doesn’t match the real experience. As there is almost no chance to practice in normal
operations there is very little chance to enhance. Practice should be mandatory.
▪ Manual flying in line ops is limited to a small number of manoeuvres where in a sim you can replicate unusual
or more demanding situations.
▪ Although the feedback in most simulators is not as good as in the aircraft, time can be allowed in the
simulator to train the correct techniques which can then be applied to the line.
▪ A combination of both FFS and line flying is the best way to maintain manual flying skills. Certain things
cannot be practiced in line flying, but line flying is what we do the most, hence it is where we are most likely
to maintain our skill.
▪ The simulator is a very good tool for allowing pilots to face situations they are unlikely to have during line
operations and practice their skills in a safe, controlled environment. However, the simulated environment is
not a replacement for the real one and confidence grown from manual flight during line operations will help
ensure the pilot feels capable of handling the aircraft when there is no ‘pause’ button.

▪ Hand flying 1 approach every 6 months is not sufficient to maintain hand flying skills. An approach should be
manually flown on the line at least once a week to maintain proficiency.
▪ Hand flying is a skill that must be practiced. You can learn the basics, and experience situations you couldn’t
safely practice in a sim, but this must be backed up by regular hand flying in real world conditions.
▪ I would like to be encouraged to hand fly more, but I feel my current airline is too quick to penalize crews for
making errors. As such it is easier - and safer for my job prospects - to stick with the automatics unless
forced not to.
▪ Flying manually during line operations will give the practice that is needed for normal flight. However extra
practice of abnormal/upset situations is required in the simulator.
▪ The simulator feels unrealistic since the traffic cannot be simulated and also you always have in the back of
your head that a mistake won't be punished unlike actual flying.
▪ If Company policy allowed the PF to manually fly approaches without autopilot or autothrust and
occasionally without Flight Director during low threat daytime operations, this would be sufficient to
compensate for the current lack of competency and confidence in manual flying. The barrier to this though is
the Company's attitude to penalizing Flight Deck crew for minor FDR and QAR exceedances. Many sackings
have occurred during these past 15 years, so the pilot force complies with the Automation policy.
Question 40: We wanted to know the opinion of the respondents on whether training should put more emphasis on
the expected transition from automatic flight to manual flying and vice versa? 3,358 responded to this question.
The majority believe that training should put more emphasis on the expected transition from automatic flight to
manual flying and vice versa.
75% OF THE SURVEY RESPONDENTS RESPONDED

AFFIRMATIVE
25.07%
Question 40: Do you believe that training
should put more emphasis on the
expected transition from automatic flight
to manual flying and vice versa? 74.93%
No 25.07% 842
No Yes
Yes 74.93% 2,516
Question 41: As with question 40, we wanted to know the opinion of the respondents on whether training should
put more emphasis on the unexpected transition from automatic flight to manual flying and vice versa? 3,358
responded to this question. A large majority of respondents (91,90%) believe that training should put more
emphasis on the unexpected transition from automatic flight to manual flying and vice versa.

92% OF RESPONDENTS RESPONDED AFFIRMATIVE
Question 41: Do you believe that training
8.10%
should put more emphasis on the
unexpected transition from automatic
flight to manual flying and vice versa?
No 8.10% 272 91.90%
Yes 91.90% 3,086

No Yes
Question 42: We have provided the respondents a free text box for any additional information they would like to
add. 909 provided comments.
Question 42: Please use this space below for any additional information you
would like to add:
In brief, respondents believe that:
▪ A company culture which encourages manual flying is a drive for pilots to feel comfortable when switching
automation off.
▪ Airline operators should implement an easier non-punitive reporting culture.
▪ Operators should ensure that their pilots maintain their manual handling skills, with opportunities to train in
FSTD, especially for the long-haul pilots.
▪ Operators should offer their pilots enough training, correct concept and techniques for more manual flying
practice.
▪ Pilots must have a good understanding of the aircraft automation systems and make the appropriate
decisions when encountering unusual situations, such as when automation fails or there is an emergency.
▪ High speed/high altitude should be trained to avoid overreaction to temporary environmentally induced
speed excursions.
▪ Companies should encourage manual flight from 10.000 till touchdown.

▪ During long haul operation there’s seldom a chance to be PF, less to practice manual flying.
▪ We all make mistakes in manual flight. A company approach of easier reporting culture should be
in place to ensure more people fly themselves.
▪ The industry, for the sake of safety, should realize that pilots must keep their manual handling
skills to a very good level and encourage this.
▪ Correct concept and technique for more manual flying practice is important.
▪ Please read all of my comments contained within this survey. I believe I have included many
reasons that cause degraded manual flying skills. Once lost, they are very hard to get back when
you are a part of a professional airline. It is hard to admit that you no longer have the level of
proficiency required when you are a professional pilot. It is hard also for an operator to admit
this. This should change.

▪ I think manual flight has eroded over the years and too much reliance on automation is now the
case. Manual flight should be encouraged more to retain skills.
▪ Training such as flying go-arounds manually without the use of the F/D's etc. More startle factor
to be built into manual flying training in the simulator.
▪ Company culture is the strongest drive for a pilot workforce to feel comfortable to take the
automation off during line operations.
▪ The pilots’ profession involves flying the plane without any automation. Pilots should be
competent at flying the plane at all times. Automation doesn’t replace hand flying skills.
▪ I have seen Pilots arguing that passenger comfort is paramount, and one should not fly manually
for this reason. That’s because they are not used to do it. And Pilots shouldn’t even try to
understand what the autopilot is doing when it is not doing what it’s supposed to. IMMEDIATELY
A/P AUTOTHRUST OFF. And VERY comfortable about doing it, any phase of flight, any weather.
▪ Our first commitment is to safety but in the real life our first commitment is to passenger
comfort, therefore the airline does not allow us to practice manual flying in the majority of the
flights. But in order to keep a safe operation if an automation failure is encounter, we need to
practice more manual flying ASAP.
▪ High speed high altitude manual flight transition should be trained and emphasized. Flight
beyond the normal envelope into the extended envelope specially in the high-speed regimen
should be better trained to avoid overreaction to temporary environmentally induced speed
excursions.
▪ Sometimes there’s lack of practice due to automation and some people think that manual flying
is a wrong way to fly, and do not feel support from their companies and from manuals. The first
golden rule says use the correct automation at all times.
▪ Automation is wonderful to reduce workload. However, if one does never hand fly, loss of training
and lack of confidence may be dangerous if hand flying becomes really necessary. Hand flying, if
done regularly increases confidence, and improves monitoring skills while flying with automation.
▪ Long haul pilots do very few flights as PF and are generally tired and therefore prefer to use
automation as long as possible. They must have opportunities to train on FFS.
▪ Technology is here to make pilots’ life easier but emphasis on understanding the technology
plus simple flying should be encouraged at all time.

Appendix A – Methodology for extraction of data from
free-text questions – IATA Accident Classification
Taxonomy
The IATA Accident Classification Taxonomy was used for a direct mapping to be possible between the free-text
answer data analysis and the pre-existing accident/incident analysis for future detailed cross-referencing.
Threats that were considered irrelevant to manual flying were then removed either because they were directly
linked to a ground phase of flight (e.g. A06 Dispatch/Paperwork) or possibly not a reason for manual flying to be
refrained from (E04 Birds/foreign objects).
Common free text terms used were then manually searched for in the documentation and tagged to each main
threat by an aviation expert. This method was applied until it was felt that the majority of clear terms were identified.
Ambiguous terms were not included.
From a competency perspective, FPA and FPM were removed as this survey is directly related to their use or non-
use and therefore it was inappropriate to include them. Terms were tagged to competencies based on Observable
Behaviours descriptions.
The tagged terms were then searched for and a total count was taken to calculate the total number of terms seen
for each threat and competency. Where appropriate, some terms were added to both a threat and competency.

Iata Report Aircraft Handling Manual Flying Skills

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iata Report Aircraft Handling Manual Flying Skills

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Iata Report Aircraft Handling Manual Flying Skills

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills

1 Aircraft Handling and Manual Flying Skills

2 Manual Flying Skills

3 Manual Flying Skills

4 Manual Flying Skills

2. Survey Results in Brief

5 Manual Flying Skills

6 Manual Flying Skills

7 Manual Flying Skills

5.1. Demographic Information

56% OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE CAPTAINS

First Officer 43.72% 2,470

Answered 5,650 - Skipped 0

76% OF THE RESPONDENTS DO NOT PERFORM OTHER

Answered 5,650 - Skipped 0

MORE THAN 60% OF THE RESPONDENTS WHO PERFORM

Management Pilot 37.91% 378

Answered 997 - Skipped 4,653

8 Manual Flying Skills

30% OF THE RESPONDENTS ARE BASED IN EUROPE REGION

Africa (AFI) 3.72% 197 NAM

Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 19.53% 1,033 LATAM/CAR

North Asia (NASIA) 2.12% 112 MENA

Commonwealth of 1.30% 69 EUR

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

9 Manual Flying Skills

Between 40 to 50 years 27.76% 1,468 Between 40

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

42% OF THE RESPONDENTS HAVE MORE THAN 15 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL

Between 10 to 15 years 19.47% 1,030

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

10 Manual Flying Skills

Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 20% 439

North Asia (NASIA) 2% 49

Commonwealth of Independent State (CIS) 1% 19

Europe (EUR) 27% 608

Middle East and North Africa (MENA) 30% 675

Latin America and Caribbean (LATAM/CAR) 11% 241

North America (NAM) 6% 128

THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS INDICATED THAT THEY PERFORM MEDIUM-HAUL

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

11 Manual Flying Skills

79% OF THE RESPONDENTS INVOLVED IN PASSENGER COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS

Passenger 78.81% 4,168

Both: Passenger and Cargo 16.56% 876 78.81%

Passenger Cargo Both

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

Between 10 – 20 legs 21.91% 1,159 More than 20 45.76%

Answered 5,289 - Skipped 361

12 Manual Flying Skills

MOST RESPONDENTS OPERATE MORE ON THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF GENERATION 4 JET

Generation 4 — Jet: 3,915

A318/A319/A320/A321 (including neo),

A300 (except A300-600), BAC111,

13 Manual Flying Skills

5.2. Airline Policy

Yes, without any 35.89% 1,881

Answered 5,241 - Skipped 409

14 Manual Flying Skills

Asia Pacific (ASPAC) 296 724