Originally Posted by
Check Airman
I've flown curved legs without a FD. The aircraft had a CDI. It was a complete non-event. As
pineteam said earlier, had Boeing and Airbus installed a CDI on the nav display, we could easily do "raw data" RNAV procedures.
Correction:
You could easily fly the "raw data" curved RNAV - on a good day. Us, the global pool of average pilots having weak days now and then, could not without adversely affecting some of the statistics.
Either case, such an exercise would be worthwhile to the pilot and unnecessary burden to the flight operations at the same time.
Think of your best talented A-10 pilot. Is he an expert aviator or a Senior Ordonance Delivery Executive? Both in my opinion and one skill set would not suffice if the other was deficient. Understandably the hangar talk is mostly who can best fly the ship tail first. As you go higher up the chain of command
and responsibility, the pendulum swings to the other side of relevant. The mission requires both and don't despise the people on the top for caring almost solely about the overall production efficiency.
Is automation dependency encouraged? What a beautiful statement, clear and strong, showing where the line in the sand is. If we (had) reach(ed) the point where perceived automation over-use causes less trouble [(killed customers)^3 / cash / emissions] than the incumbent option - the future of air transport will see the piloting element dissolved.
No, it's not my operational philosophy; but yes it is what I see when reading the landscape of our much-beloved industry. Systems and engineering designs can be improved asymptotically to perfection, whereas reliability and performance level of humans - as a group - have their upper limit, distinctly below of what is achievable with technology. Habsheim and MAX do not enter the debate, those were both rapist acts.
Loved and will long for Skiathos and Santorini, quite happy to stay not qualified for Madeira, or Innsbruck. Mostly for the fuel decisions when approaching the IAF hold.
