Originally Posted by
pineteam
Hi Vilas and Giggitygiggity,
I agree that knowing the emergency procedures are paramount and would have helped in the case of AF 447 and QZ8501. But Like Airbus explains: Basic skills is not something we unlocked with practice and maintain for life; unfortunately, it will erode in time if no practice. You can have 10 000 hours of flying stick and rudder like a champ but the day you stop, your performance in that aspect will go down. For example if professional tennis player stops training for many years, how will he perform? He would not stand a chance against any decent tennis players. When was the last time these poor pilots flew raw data last? Imagine in the case of QZ8501 if they were flying manual thrust on that day; I highly doubt the outcome would have been the same. Your scan for the pitch, speed, vertical speed and altitude is a must when you fly raw data to stay within the safe enveloppe. Flying with perfect automation behaviour all the times for so many years and you will naturally be less on your guard. I don’t know guys for me it’s a no brainer that these skills still need to be maintained. And looking at many of these accidents or incidents I can not stop thinking that if on that particular day if only the FD or auto thrust were off many lives could have been saved..
Again missing the topic. Yes, raw data and manual handling on the line, when conditions permit, is useful. But doesn't have anything at all to do with the amount of training needed to reach the flight deck of an airliner, which was the start of this topic: is it enough to have 140 hours to start on an airbus. And yes, it is, under the condition of a well done selection and focused and structured training. And yes, i have seen MPL students do near perfect raw data approaches and non-MPL do a mess of things in similar conditions.