Originally Posted by
sonicbum
Yes, absolutely, my point was that if the NG had the capability to perform an AP coupled go around in normal ops (besides low vis) then the outcome could have been different.
My post#114
3. No matter how well a pilot is trained or is experienced he does not become immune to all the ills human flesh is heir to(human factors).
4. Automation can perform repetatively to a given standard. There is no variation due to skill. If it doesn't just replace it.
5. A few failures of automation is not enough evidence against automation just as one Sully or Al Haynes doesn't make a summer. There are any number of fully serviceable Aircraft crashed through inadequate piloting.
Fly Dubai case:
Compare with my para no.3. Pilot was emotionally messed up. Human factor.
If it was Airbus they would have flown in Auto and result would have been different.
Compare my para no. 4 and 5.
Automation can perform repeatatively to a given standard.
The aircraft was fully serviceable crashed due to inadequate piloting.
Idea of practicing raw data is develop and maintain a scan pattern of monitoring attitude, speed, altitude, thrust and/or ROD or ROC. It doesn't help flying everything in raw data and it is not possible. You can't practice high altitude handling, GAs, Direct law landings or any abnormalities.