In hindsight, I am not sure this was the correct approach. As others have pointed out, knowing how to make full use of the automatic systems is an important skill. Also, part of my capacity was used up flying the aircraft, instead of gaining situational awareness in the procedures. I wonder whether better results might be obtained during IR training by teaching students to fly procedures on the autopilot initially, and then once they have built up situational awareness, advance on to hand-flying everything.
Did you not use something like RANT during the course and then an FNPT before moving onto the aircraft?
RANT is where you gain "situational awareness in the procedures", the FNPT adds the basic flying elements along with those procedures and finally the aircraft combines that all in the air for a final polish before test.
How many spare training hours did you have on the IR?
------
Of course the workload will be higher if flying manually
Ohhh yes we know that.
However, if the automation is removed (autopilot and flight director) and the pilot can't cope with the workload then they should not be there in the first place.
We can extend the
initial IR course to 75 hours and require all schools to have an approved aircraft with autopilot, flight director and moving map GPS with up-to-date database.
Of course the test would take 4 hours - 2 hours of doing it all manually (like now) and then 2 hours of doing it again with all the whizz bang automatics. If they fail part 1 then they can't attempt part 2.
Try selling that one to AOPA.
In general the IR course serves it's purpose. It produces a pilot who can (when completed correctly) in simple basic terms fly a single (or multi engine) aircraft in the IFR system in IMC safely including coping with certain emergency situations. They may not have much experience but the day they pass the test they have the basic ability to go flyingh without killing thermselves or causing mayhem in the IFR system.
Now, how many of those pilots who become owner pilots (and I include you IO-540) in this question go out and complete a manufacturer approved course of training specific to their aircraft type and equipment fit before using their aircraft?
and
AFAIK this is still the case, 8 years on, where I am based and where there is a pile of flying schools including an FTO. The instructor knowledge situation is positively dire. I imagine nowadays they can mostly program a GNS430 to fly A-B.
There is a pile of training organisations near me (in relative terms) and not one of them can teach on the B757/767. They must be rubbish. Fancy providing training for years on the A320, the B747 and the B737 but not knowing anything about the B757? Shocking Shambles.
I know a place that does B757/767 training but does not do A320, B747 or B737 training. Clearly they are missing a vast important piece of knowledge!!
If you want to receive quality instruction then you are going to have to pay for it and not try to do it on the cheap.
Perhaps you are confusing the idea that:
an autopilot will reduce the workload so that you can arrive at the end of a 4 hour flight through complicated airspace in IMC less tired and therefore more able to hand-fly that tricky circling approach in high terrain and minimum weather
with
(what you paint)) - a device that keeps the blue side up for a pilot that can't cope without it?
-----
Autopilot = long legs.
No autopilot = shorter legs for a break.
Only difference that I can see (without going into RVSM / MEL restrictions etc)