Originally Posted by
Check Airman
Why do commercial flights and training flights need to be mutually exclusive? When you go to the hospital, the doctors who see you may well be in training. Even after training, as consultant or attending physicians, don't you agree that they're honing their skills with each new patient?
Nobody's suggesting we go around pulling breaker to see what happens. I don't even consider flying around with 0 automation to be training, really- it's more about maintaining a firm grasp on an ablatable skill set- one which we may need to call upon without as much as a moment's notice.
I am sure you can give better example than Doctors. Sure! They practice their skills on sick patients but not on a healthy person making him sick just for practice. I understand what you are trying to say but I don't see it as that much of a problem to be so passionate about to suggest instruments to be redesigned to allow pilots to fly raw data. In Airbus it's very rare to do at moment's notice. AP off not a big deal it will hold it's flight path. In Airbus one is better off keeping one's hands off till you get your wits about. Again 447! in alternate law all they had to do was just keep wings level, ask for the Capt to return and gracefully exit the scene. QZ8501 is even more bizarre. They engineered a crash by trying to be engineers by fiddling with CBs (which is forbidden), they caused alternate law, instead of controlling the bank they caused the pitch up which on it's own the aircraft wouldn't, they stall the aircraft, they don't recover. There's a lot to learn from this but raw data has nothing to do. Let's leave the accidents. Absurd but someone may say had the 447 PF reported sick it would have prevented the accident. Isn't it true?