OC
Indeed some interesting points - however, I would go as far as to suggest that one shouldn't be operating on an expectation pattern
.
Let me explain what is meant by expectation pattern.
On your instruments you are flying straight and level and unaccelerated. You want to climb and for that you pull the stick back some amount and you expect the corresponding action of your aircraft on the instruments or by other appropriate means. Reaching the desired altitude you put the stick forward and you expect the pitch to decrease, the climb to stop and you check that again on the instruments, do some necessary corrections until you are again in level unaccelerated flight. By the way, if you didnīt expect an speed decrease due to climb, you probably forgot to adjust power.
If you are doing this on Automatics, you turn the necessary switches or / and pusch the buttons and expect again the automatics doing same as above, you monitor the action and the outcome on your instruments.
When PF is flying, PNF expects the PF to do all the steps above either in Automode or manual until the desired outcome is achieved, and again PNF will monitor on the instruments the correct application and the outcome.
If PNF does not expect a climb from autopilot or from PF, because it was neither intended nor anounced, and the instruments indicate a climb, he will not know, wether it is an instrument malfunction, turbulence, an autopilot malfunction, an intended or unintended climb by the PF. But the knowledge what caused the climb might be necessary to apply the correct action.
Letīs use speed as a further example to make my point clear:
Again straight and level, unaccelerating flight. On the instruments the speed tape is indicating an unplanned decrease in speed. Again it could be due to UAS (do nothing), due to unintentional climb (stop climb, descent back down), thrust change, autothrust malfunction (use manual thrust, set correct setting). Sure you check the other intruments, which will tell you why the speed is decreasing. This one shows, that you can get the necessary information of "what and why" from the instruments, but that will not work as nicely with the control around the axis of the airframe (pitch, bank, yaw), because the instruments only will tell you what and not always why.
OC
My instructors always taught me that you don't expect anything but you accept what the instruments tell you. Once you start to expect you run the risk of deviating from how things are and getting into a mess.
If we can agree to replace "expecting" with "guessing", iīm 100% with you.
But to control the effectiveness of an input, you have to rely on an corresponding reaction pattern. Simplest one being taught in the first flying hour: Pull on yoke, houses get smaller; push yoke, houses get bigger; Yoke left, house left side; yoke right, houses right side; throttle forward (depending on aircraft) engine noise louder, throttle backward, engine more quiet.
OC
Our instructors didnīt have to emphasize the why after the what, because we had the yoke or stick in our hands and knew why we where off the desired parameters.
Ever trained unusual attitudes with closed eyes? Instructor mistrims the aircraft in pitch and yaw and hands you the aircraft over while hanging upside down? You see the situation on the instruments and make the appropriate flightcontrol inputs, but you stop fightig the aircraft during recoveryy the moment you recognize the wrong trim (the why), because now you know why it handles that bad and you know the correct solution.
OC
Of course this may be different in military aviation but this is what I learned.
No, it is not. Guessing kills you already in peacetime albeit in war.
OC
Knowing what is often a vital factor and could be said to have more importance than why.
That is absolutely correct, but it does not make the "knowing why" unnecessary. It is not an either / or. It is a sequential thing. You have to know "what is happening" and the best path for an appropriate correction is to "know why" it happend.
It makes life easier.