To all correspondants about F.D.'s I concur whole-heartedly. I've always tried to teach to 'look through' the F.D's and maintain a raw data scan. Only then can you see what the F.D. is telling you and understand why. Sadly, there were other insructors who hammered the students to "follow the F.D". So they did, solely. Unfortunately I think that philosophy has prevailed. Trying to explain to students, and other instructors that the F.D can drop you in some very deep holes showed that they did not understand fully how it worked. If wrongly used (B737) V/S can fly you into the ground; on the classics it can stall you, as can ALT HLD. The F.D will be perfectly centred. I even see SFI's teaching cadets about the FPV on the NG. That too can stall you without a basic scan. It will only be the performance istruments in the basic scan that wil alert you to the impending problem. On B757/B767 generation a/c it was a command requirement to fly a tiny SBY instrument approach. Is that still the case, and would most be able to do so? On the new NG a/c., even with total A.C., failure there will be a no F.D. PFD. Nice big fat and juicy TV screen. There is still a tiny SBY ADI/ASI. Could most pilots fly that? If not, why's it there? However, we don't all fly that technology. On NG LNAV GPS a/c I find students do not look at 'the needles'. They assume the magenta line will always be correct. Such was the case when I converted a senior training pilot from B738 - B733. On an NDB approach he hadn't a clue where the inbound CRS was. He didn't realise there was map shift on a non-GPS a/c. He flew the magenta line in HDG SEL (SOP for the classic), but was not on the inbound track by 0.6 nm. No scan of the basics.
There was even a case years ago of a crew on a very short UK flight, B733, who could not engage LNAV or VNAV or A/T on departure. They returned. It didn't occur to them to inform ATC and fly raw data VOR's. There have been a few well documented crashes on contollable flying a/c where the instruments were giving spurious readings. They did not show what was expected from the control inputs. However, with some careful analysis and 'back to basics' airmanship the situation was survivable. Is that not what our pax expect from us; to be able to manange such a scenario?
I remember, perhaps Jackie Stewart, who won a Grandprix without a clutch for half the race. He managed the revs and what gears to use. Basics. (bring back manula gearboxes). I remember stories of mariners who lost nav systems and reverted to sextants and D.R. Should we allow the old magic black arts to disppear in our profession? There are many places in the world still without radar coverage. If the nav boxes shoutdown you are on your own, and ofen on minimum fuel these days. If the EADI freezes in a erronious attitude should we not be able to detect something is wrong and survive it? Or do we go down the route of 'the chances of it happening are so one in so many millions that it will just be a 'bad-hair' day'. Lets put on more backup systems, and have SOP's that keep us so far away from the boundaries that we don't even know where they are.
I've flown B767 into Calvi with a visual downwind amongst the mountains onto the northly Rwy. The same applied to Corfu at night onto the southerly; likewise Salzburg onto the northerly. It was a big a/c. Nothing macho, cowboy or special about it. It was the norm and expected from our crews. The a/c had the capabilities, so too did the crews. I wonder nowadays?
Are we old farts becoming like the 'Space Cowboys' (Clint, Tommy Lee & James G) hand flying the Space Shuttle with all systems off, or are we out of touch with the future and the real requirements? I'm sure the debate will run & run and go round in circles and disappear where the sun don't shine, but it's fun the shoot the breeze about it. Sadly, most of the F/O's I fly with want to be able to do the things we talk about; they just don't get the chance or the training. One day they might have to, and then...................