Originally Posted by
vilas
This is what the FD does. A raw data is raw data. You are suggesting a emergency or limited function FD. The technology may provide you an emergency FD using different inputs. As it is A350 gives you AP even with double engine flameout. It does auto TCAS, auto TCAP(TCAS prevention), auto EMER DES. They aren't going to develop anything to help you fly raw data. They will develop emergency AP. You don't need to practice everything raw. How many times FD are lost during RNAV departure and you have no alternative? A direct to or radar vector is always possible. As long as you can climb, descent execute an approach raw data within acceptable accuracy it is good enough.
Yes, the FD does that (or rather, uses that), and actually much more. It also uses a notion of distance to the runway to modify its own sensibility. It uses a computed geographical position and real time turning radius capacity to anticipate the LOC interception.. There are many features embedded in the airbus flight guidance system.
Are you suggesting that DME speed (if you recall my speech about DME arcs using the old system vs the new system) on old bendix king DME receivers is not raw data ?
I am not suggesting a limited function FD at all.
I am suggesting that the aircraft stops hiding useful data that it has, such as LOC trend, crosstrack deviation for RNAV departures and approaches..
It is not about mitigating the consequences of FD failure, you lost the global objective of this topic.
Mitigating the consequences of FD failure would just be a "collateral benefit".
The whole point of the discussion is to allow pilots to fly more comfortably raw data (by presenting
useful information), or to merely allow them to do so (by presenting
required information)
If pilots have the possibility to fly raw data, they will do it more than if they have no possibility of doing it. Sorry for saying this sentence, which was completely obvious, even tautological.
The whole point of this is to encourage raw data flying, not because it is better, more precise than automatic flying, on the contrary. But because it develops the basic skill that we need to do our job.
All of this is about ergonomics.
You could imagine a PFD displaying the entire possible range of angles of pitch (from -90° to +90°) and two or three times smaller than it is now.
Would that make controlling the pitch easier ?
You surely agree that it would make no sense to do such a modification, because it would make the flying very impractical ?
So why stop at not deteriorating the ergonomics ? The logical thing to do is to improve the ergonomics, each time that it's possible.
Originally Posted by
Judd
Fascinating. "Walking the throttles" was a DC3 technique used if the the throttle friction nut was poorly maintained making the throttles stiff to operate causing a jerky operation. I have seen pilots who unconsciously walk the thrust levers of a 737. It becomes a gimmicky habit. The result can be a slight but annoying change of noise or engine synchronisation. Old habits die hard. ...
I learnt very soon that this technique is very useful for fine adjustments.
As I said, because the useful distance traveled by the thrust levers is very very limited.
Originally Posted by
vilas
not required in airbus, just look at the gauge and move the doughnuts to the requirement thrust will catch-up.
Are you reading the conversation ? If you want to correct the thrust for 800fpm to 700fpm, you have to move the thrust levers by a distance as short as an ant's bottom.
It sounds like you're working for Airbus. "The aircraft is perfect as is."