Originally Posted by
Tee Emm
Disagree. Any pilot worth his wings should easily be able to handle an engine failure and hand fly at the same time.
Indeed he should but:
a ) there is no point making life harder than it should be by hand flying when a perfectly serviceable autopilot is available (it's not safer to hand fly, so why do it?),
b ) changing the roles of the two pilots (PF to PNF and vice versa) in the middle of an engine problem also complicates the issue by making the pilots re-jig their mind-sets at a tricky moment.
c ) relying upon the PNF to identify the failure and not checking yourself means that no-one is cross checking. By his own admission the Captain looked at the engine instruments but did not gain from them a clear indication of the problem.
All three of the above go against general UK airline industry practice.
There were a whole pile of other factors associated with the incorrect identification too.
Back in the old days, pilots sat on the outside and got covered in oil and froze - do you want to go back to that idea, too?
. There are no Brownie points or extra money to be had from doing it the hard way.
I would suggest to you that as the Canberra had no autopilot, the average Canberra pilot got a lot more hands on time - but doesn't have to worry about passenger comfort, Passenger safety and can bang out if necessary! How many Canberra crews have died just practising asymmetric flying under controlled conditions? The answer will be a shockingly high number if you work it out. Given a decent autopilot, the late Stn Cdr from Wyton would probably still be alive.
Your argument holds as much water as a collander.
Crews train in the sim to deal with engine failures whilst hand flying - but should use the AP in the air if it's available as it reduces workload. You are clearly NOT and airline pilot as you are out of touch with airline training standards and SOPs.