The case for regular manual reversion training on the 737.
During type rating training in the 737 simulator, the Boeing syllabus dictates just one manual reversion landing, and that is probably during the session that introduces hydraulic failures in turn leading to manual reversion. In cyclic or recurrent training it is rare to revisit manual reversion.
Engine failures/fire warnings at V1 are regular simulator training items and certainly there is no shortage of one engine inoperative landings, go arounds, VOR/ILS, circling and so on. And should they happen in real life, it is hoped most pilots would cope successfully.
A manual reversion ILS approach and landing in the 737 requires considerable flying skill. One could argue it is the ultimate in old fashioned stick and rudder skills - and we all know how stick and rudder skills have been degraded nowadays by the accent on automatics.
While the majority of competent pilots would be confident of conducting a safe single engine landing during a line flight, it could be a different story should one be faced with a real manual reversion landing. If a single engine approach becomes unstable, a go-around is no sweat to a competent pilot. But I wonder how many would be confident of conducting in real life, a well executed manual reversion landing. Methinks not too many...
The manual reversion approach and landing is arguably the riskiest and most prone to go wrong manoeuvre a pilot will experience in his career; no matter how remote the possibility. During manual reversion simulator training, one observes more heavy landings following unstable approaches than any other manoeuvre in the Boeing syllabus.
If this is a common observation, and it probably is, then surely competence at manual reversion landings should be practiced during recurrent and proficiency checks in the simulator? Not just once, but several times each year.
After all, which manoeuvre is the more critical and difficult maneuvre to fly? One engine inoperative landing-or manual reversion landing? Most pilots would opt for the latter even though both are only remote possibilities
Last edited by A37575; 15th Aug 2008 at 12:29.