Hello,
The title is voluntarily a bit provoking and I will explain my point of view in more details. Note that I fly the 320 so all that follows is applicable to this aircraft, not necessarily all others.
As I was saying in the other topic, aware that manual flying skills erode, airbus and airlines reckoned that pilots need to train regularly in real conditions, not just twice a year in the sim.
We even received, at our airline, a few weeks ago an e-mail reminding that, particularly with the low level of activity that we have with the covid crisis, it is recommended to practise manual flying as much as possible.
No problem at all at my airline, since most pilots I've seen commonly fly with no automation (AP, FD, ATHR, even the bird off).
The point of this topic is rather to point out the fact that modern aircraft tend to
encourage automation dependency.
The point that best illustrates the problem is RNAV navigation and the way that it is managed.
With conventional navigation, pilots had to maintain a very good situational awareness at all times during the approach. Basic IFR training has pilots constantly think about wind, drift correction angle, timing corrections, anticipation angles,...
The conceptual workload peaked when I was flying single engine NDB's on the DA42. Correcting the wind, the drift angle due to n-1, while following the descent with altitudes to pass every 30s, readjusting power to correct height resulting in a requirement to correct the asymmetry... This is lightyears away from flying a normal ILS with ATHR and FDs ON.
But the way airbus manages lateral navigation is to rely completely on the FDs.
Yes, there is still a way to perform conventional navigation, using the VOR mode of the ND, but it is not trained and the aircraft is not really designed to be flown that way. A VOR approach is meant to be flown in NAV mode, following the FD, and then in FINAL APP mode with a minimal workload. One could argue that "meant to" is subjective and only my interpretation, but the FCOM clearly assumes in the "non precision approach" procedure that the FDs are used, and for RNAV approaches it is objective : they are mandatory.
Which is completely logical since
there is no way to properly fly an RNAV approach in raw data. The MEL states that without FDs, the aircraft is not even RNAV1 nor RNAV2.
So for any departure or arrival that is RNAV, you are dependent on the FD, there simply is no other way available on this airbus.
But, it would be completely feasible to allow rnav approaches without FDs : just display an HSI : horizontal situation indicator, which would indicate the desired RNAV track, and a lateral deviation bar in nautical miles (instead of degrees on a VOR), and eventually a timer that indicates when to start the turn (like Garmin does). That's it.
Furthermore, the standard takeoff procedure also asks to follow the FDs : "after liftoff, follow the SRS pitch command bar". Are we deemed uncapable of pre-setting a target pitch (15°) then adjust it to maintain a given speed ? Anyway, many departure procedures are RNAV so it would also require the FDs.
The same type of reasoning can be applied to all phases of flight. Correct me if I'm wrong, I've heard that ATHR OFF at easyjet is forbidden, and that FD use is strongly encouraged at Ryanair for example. As Jacques Rosay says in the following article,
flying with FDs is not manually flying, it is following the orders given by the FDs, that would otherwise have been given directly to the flight controls actuators.
https://safetyfirst.airbus.com/app/t...df.php?p=25849
The almost constant use of FD (that is required by design for many situations) can lead to decrease in basic IFR navigation and basic handling skills.
With this type of design, how can we still maintain a high standard of basic handling and IFR navigation competency ?
How can we say on one hand that pilots need to be able to fly without automation, and on the other hand not even give them the means to do it ?
There is still one time when it is feasible to fly manually : radar vectors to an ILS, no automation. The only difficulty is to know when to intercept the localizer, because most of the time the turn towards final should be initiated before the loc indicator is alive. Fortunately there are one or two ways (at least 3) to manage this.
Do you generally agree with the opinion that pilots should be able to consistently fly with no automation ?
How does this match with some airlines policy of forbidding to disconnect them ?
Many people will encourage manual flying "when conditions permit" : what are precisely the conditions that would encourage, allow, or discourage or even forbid manual flying ?
In my perception of things, clouds should not discourage FD OFF (except if they are just above the minimas), neither should a little turbulence.
The only conditions where I would find very adapted to use the FDs would be either a very turbulent approach (ATHR OFF, FDs on and AP OFF, all working together in order to reduce the amplitude and frequency of variations, to smooth the trajectory), or high crew fatigue, but I haven't thought out every possible combination of conditions, so your inputs are more than welcome.
Thanks