Originally Posted by
RetiredBA/BY
Point 1, In which case they have the wrong calibre of pilots flying their jets!
Point 2. Wow, unbelievable, and is that why, following an engine failure ( unlocked cowls) the captain had to get the FO to handle manual thrust for speed control ?
In my younger days, 50 years ago, in a Canberra we flew, single pilot, often to limits.
Raw data approaches without FD, we didnt have one !
We flew it in manual, AP not fitted !
Manual thrust, sometimes on one engine, no AT installed.
We more than coped, it was just the norm, we were well trained, ( and we could recover jets, large and small, from a stall without any “birds“ or A of A instrumentation,) and just got on with it, no problem.
.
I still dont understand the logic of one airline which does not allow use of manual thrust in normal ops. BUT allows dispatch with AT inop.!
Back, in my despair to much of what I read in this thread, to my morning coffee !
Most of present lot wil not be able to handle OEI Canberra. Not so much because they are not capable but because nobody is trained to that level of handling and because it's not required. Why! put a purely Airbuss guy in a 737 for EFATO he will take some time. Modern aircraft are not that nasty. From those olden days traffic has increased multifold and without automation that wasn't possible. So training must be done within the constraints to only required proficiency. It's like driving to office and back sure there may be rain, mist, dust, traffic but one doesn't need formula one driving skills. Because no matter how well you fly you will not be permitted a CAT3 landing or to stay in RVSM. Aircraft are built with more and more automation to be flown using them, use of appropriate automation also needs to be learnt There are incidents because pilots didn't know what the aircraft was doing. Manual flying is done to have the skills to fly without them should they fail which most Pilots will not experience. Good Manual flying skill doesn't protect from insufficient automation knowledge.