Originally Posted by
PEI_3721
Several posts described the difficulties of flying with raw data, relating this with 'deficiencies' in modern instrument displays. These posts suggest novice-like behaviour and difficulties with situation awareness; projection, predictive ability. No aspersions on the ability of skill of the authors, but an observation relating to the wider industry; aviation operates with a lower level of expertise than previously, yet it is 'safer'.
It makes absolutely no sense to correlate those two things.
Just because someone suggests a possible improvement about ergonomics, that says nothing about their skills.
Airline pilots should be competent, have all the skills that you list, yes.
Does that prevent an aircraft manufacturer from making their products easier to use ?
With your reasoning, we could very well accept that the aircraft manufacturer makes a very complicated aircraft and reject the blame on the pilots for not being competent enough.
For example, we could accept the overhead panel to be designed for minimum cost rather than for presenting a coherent view to the pilot. We would get an overhead with buttons put in a seemingly random or counterintuitive fashion. Would you blame a pilot for launching the wrong fire agent, if agent 1 from engine 1 was next to engine 2 fire button ? Or would you blame the manufacturer for an absurd design ?
You could also imagine reverted controls, all kinds of absurdity, you would still blame the pilots protesting about this as "not skillful enough" ?
It is absurd.
Aircraft manufacturers and pilots work hand in hand for safety.
Pilots have to be the most competent that they can and Airbus has to deliver an aircraft that is as easy to use as possible.
So yes, I still don't understand airbus' position. If manual flying is important, as they say, to maintain flying skills, why don't they give the pilot a crosstrack deviation, allowing them to practise RNAV in raw data ?