beerdrinker (#13) thanks. My history of the subject was based on all-weather ops, but I agree that the concept can be applied more generally or not.
One angle was that the ‘sharing’ of duties alleviated problems of the all-powerful Captain or P1 dominated operations, which were common post WW2; perhaps shared-monitoring was a forerunner of CRM.
Nowadays it could be argued that with recent technology based operations, particularly the bias towards automatic approach and landing in bad weather, that the sharing aspect is no longer required. Monitoring can be accomplished by both pilots; but have the manufacturers assumed too much - are both pilots sufficiently ‘experienced’.
With more recent problems from reduced/changed training and low experience levels, the acceptability of the P2 monitoring function is questionable. If so, then Steve Last’s views (link @ #9) are highly relevant and suggest that the monitoring function be conducted by the pilot with greater experience – a shared monitored approach.
The existence of HUD or not is irrelevant as in the 787 class of aircraft it is only another (different) instrument display. This may not infer any greater capability, vice some previous non Cat 3 aircraft now fitted with HUD.
The next ‘giant step’ in procedural change might only occur if HUD was available to both pilots and was certificated as the primary (only) flight instrument reference – like the C17. However, considering equipment cost, training, experience, etc, this is unlikely; at least until they are fitted in basic training aircraft.
Last edited by alf5071h; 1st November 2012 at 13:23.