Originally Posted by
dr dre
Why do I get the feeling the real purpose of this thread is for non-airline and non-commercial pilots to boast they are “real pilots” and airline pilots are nothing more than children of magenta? To sneer down and smugly educate your airline brethren as if they cannot fly anymore? Are you guys jealous on missing out on the big leagues?
As far as lack of hand flying goes, I say it’s not a problem. There is little hand flying value to be gained anyway when the aircraft is in a stable climb or descent. The real value of manual manipulation skills are shown on an approach onto a short runway in gusty, wind shear or variable wind conditions. Hit the main gear on the markers and then exit first available taxiway as there’s another aircraft close up your backside. Won’t be able to do that unless you have good manual skills, yet airline pilots do it everyday all over the world without applause, even the so called “children of magenta”. I’d say less than 0.5% of landings are Autoland, and a auto land is pretty useless in all but the calmest wind conditions anyway.
This thread has nothing to do with jealousy or anything else like that.
About your perfect crosswind landing : it is only feasible if the pilot managed to bring the aircraft on the runway axis, at 50 above the threshold, with a slope as close as possible to -3°.
If you're high, you'll land long or hard (or at least risk it). If you're low, you could land short. If you're not on the axis at the threshold, it is a bad start..
So some credit goes to short final management (from 500ft to 50ft). And being able to manage it consistently without FDs is not the easiest thing.
To speak for myself, recently line checked, I usually fly manually at least up to slats retraction and usually to about FL80.
In descent, if my fatigue is at low enough level (which is not the case after 3-4-5 earlies), I usually disconnect everything while on the last descent before loc interception.
Originally Posted by
Negan
Nothing wrong with a go around but if you have 4 sectors and a 25 minute turn around to make each time and 5 days of that in a row you're probably going to be less inclined to fly manually and let the AP do most of the work. It's the reality of the situation.
If you're unstable and have to go around one in a hundred times, is it really a problem ?
Plus, chances are you will progress and decrease drastically this figure !
Originally Posted by
RetiredBA/BY
Absolutely agree.I would also add that any and all competent captains should be well able to decide when the operational environment is suitable to allow hand flying.
What is an appropriate or inappropriate time, then ?
I only see crew fatigue as a factor, and maybe very turbulent conditions which would ask for keeping FDs on.
Originally Posted by
alf5071h
'Is the use of automation encouraged.' Autos = AP, AT, FD, HUD; any technology which can replace or supplement manual or cognitive task.
Industry depends on automation; without it, normal operation, traffic density, challenge the economics of aviation.
Historically, tedious long-haul cruise was automated - monitoring, evolving from checking system operation, to now overseeing the 'big picture' managed by highly reliable systems with auto alerting; but humans are poor monitors, we don't monitor - monitoring is a flawed concept.
The other area of automation was for operations beyond human capability. Initially low vis approaches, now RNAV, RVSM, etc, this is the dependancy, which in a not too distant future, sees manual flight as the reversionary mode, the skills set for recovery after autos fail.
How do you safely revert if you never practise ?
Some of your sentences seem contradictory. Pilots (humans) are bad at monitoring. Pilots should monitor the automatic flying of the aircraft. Which should it be ?