Not a pilot, but the first thing I thought of reading this was
Aeroflot 593 in 1994, where the captain's 15yo son, who was in the left seat, managed to unknowingly partially disengage the autopilot with force applied to the control column.
If a force at some level applied to the rudder pedals is capable of either influencing the autopilot operation or directly influencing the aircraft's operation, it surely then becomes a tradeoff between the reliability of the autopilot combined with the likelihood of actually improving mitigation of any such failure versus the likelihood of inducing a problem with an unintended and possibly undetected input.
Originally Posted by
BraceBrace
Big question for the instructor: why? That is a cessna idea brought unto a high performance jet which could become dangerous. It is good airmanship on a cessna, it is not good airmanship on a high performance jet. You can invert the jet quickly with the rudder when overcompensating.
The only reason would be a possible engine failure, but with autopilot on there is time to recover and there is rudder trim. So no, feet of the pedals. Upset recovery does not call for rudder use (at least on a boeing it doesn’t). Stall recovery does not call for rudder use.
This makes sense to me.