Originally Posted by
Uplinker
I have often suggested that in the same way that we had to do three auto-lands in any 6 month period to keep our currency up, and keep a record of that; we should be required by pilot training management do three fully manual raw data ILS approaches. On reasonable weather days and 'reasonable airspace' days, of course.
If we were actually mandated to do three manually flown, manual thrust raw data ILS approaches - with no FDs either - in every 6 month period; it just might coax all of us out of our safety blankets, and keep our manual skills from rusting too far, (me included !).
So do we go-around once a month as well now?
There is an interesting discussion on a podcast somewhere (forgot the name), a navy pilot interviewing a DARPA pilot. What I took home is an interesting observation made in the interview that the navy pilot likes to quantify his "good piloting skills" on the simple basis of carrier landings. He doesn't really care about "in the battle" accuracy and efficiency numbers, that's not what made him a "good navy pilot". The DARPA pilot thinks it's interesting to see how pilots "quantify" their qualities: manual carrier landings. He simply "observes" that when you take away the carrier landing, you take away the metrics for the pilot to "differentiate" him from the others. So the majority of the pilots oppose to evolution like the "magic carpet" and state it destroys piloting skills. But does it really destroy flying skills, or does it take away the metrics to differentiate ourselves from others? As if those skills are the only differentiator that are "the reason why we earned to be up there".
The reason why a human is still up there is different today. Automation in normal operations does a much better job than the average pilot when it comes to carrier landings. The DARPA guy explains they were involved in GCAS and how automation at the end of the day is designed to protect when humans face their limitations.
When it comes to raw data flying, I have similar feelings. It is fun and I like to do it "time and situation permitting". But the older I get the less it has become the reference for what I would presume is to be my job: the commercial pilot. Aircraft technology evolves and should make our life easier, so we can focus on our real strengths: flexibility and adaptability. At the end of the day it is a business and automation is there to make the business work and make it a safer environment. I do not have any problem with that. At the end of the day, when you have an emergency, the goal of the situation is to make it as easy as possible. That's why you have a panpan, a mayday. You simply avoid crosswinds, you avoid bad weather, you don't go look for it anymore to "show you can". That simple idea "because I can" is becoming nothing more than "fun".
As mentioned before, the goal is not to be better than the others, the goal is not have a weakness in that area. As nicely stated "to prevent the dust and rust from settling in".
Aircraft: trimmed nicely by AP
PF: "you mind if I disconnect, fly raw data?"
Me: "If you promise not to overcorrect..."
PF: disconnects, starts moving stick and throttle... :-)