Your airlines' policy about the use of automation during flight?

[Chris Scott]

Quote from Slasher:
But with the scarebus 320 suck-squirt I get no satisfaction at all from hand-flying the damn thing, except for maybe TO to TOC and the odd raw data VOR or ILS, starting with taking out all the gizmos below 10,000. The flight controls are in a computer-driven form of CWS anyway so what's the point?

If you are looking for seat-of-the-pants flying, with the need to trim manually, you’re on the wrong aeroplane, Slasher!

And if we really want to relive our youthful experiences of flying big aeroplanes with stick-to-surface controls (no intermediate feel-units, no PFCUs, no servo-tabs, nor even any balance tabs), we’ll have to try and persuade one of those Canadian or third-world operators to trust us flying one of their precious remaining C-46s or C-47s.

You know very well that the essence of flying any jet is the relationship between pitch, bank, IAS, FPA, and thrust: and its variation at different altitudes and weights. (On all EFIS Airbuses since the A310 (1983), you can obtain FPA from the raw “bird” and also get a good idea of the AoA.)

There is a strong argument, however, for using the automatics in busy terminal areas. What worried me most in my many years on the A320 was the majority culture of delaying AP disconnect on a visual ILS approach until about 300ft, and then disconnecting it for a manual landing − retaining A/THR throughout. Once the landing checks are done, there is little for the PNF to do except monitor the flight-path and keep a lookout, so for the PF to minimise his/her workload in good weather is no longer necessary − unless fatigued.

Chris