After that latest by Mac there is little I can add. From my own world, though, I offer something a little analogous. In "Guy Mannering", Sir Walter Scott has the hero meet an old Edinburgh lawyer. Together they go to the lawyer's house. It is modest from the outside, neighbours very close. Inside was a well-proportioned room, hung with a portrait or two by Jamieson ("the Scottish Vandyke") and surrounded with books, "the best editions of the best authors, and, in particular, an admirable collection of classics.
"These", said Pleydell, "are my tools of trade. A lawyer without history or literature is a mechanic, a mere working mason; if he possesses some knowledge of these, he may venture to call himself an architect".
As observed above it is hard work, but some of us try.
I do want to put a question to Loose. He observes:
Originally Posted by Loose rivets
There now seems to be so little interest in a pilot's natural ability to fly, and yes, the reliance on simulators is to my mind-set, frightening. I spent years flying London to Spain, at night, without radar. I know what it's like to feel mind-bending terror, repeatedly, but still have to maintain a calm professional facade. .
I used to occupy a modest position in an aviation concern. We operated four DC-4s. Nothing would do but we get one of Mr Boeing's latest 737s, so off we went to Seattle and bought one [some of the reasons were hilarious: the captains reported that passengers were claustrophobic in the DC-4s. What did those passengers work at? They were hard rock miners, working at around 3,000' below the surface. Oh Well!].
The pilots went down to Seattle to learn to fly their new toy, and at the end of a dog-watch there they were, back at base with the toy. Dead easy! they explained. We have the simulators. It took me seven months with the RAF to convert from piston to jet. Was I a slow learner? I think not, so I made a mental note to be busy at head office for the next while.
I read here and there in PPRuNe that instructors, even, are afraid to spin little aircraft these days. I have worked on the occasional investigation, and I have been amazed at what pilots will say. The computer or the simulator are better than actually flying. Really?
I recall a trip transatlantic once over the Greenland mountains in a fairly light twin. The photographs were beautiful, but they never could, it seemed to me, convey that little bittie anxiety about the icing on those damned boots. Yes, I know it was not severe, but it was severe enough for me to see it, and it could have got worse. How does the computer tell you that?
My statement is: I do not believe that the computer gives better training than flying the aircraft. My question to Loose is: Am I right?