HC and, to a lesser extent, DB both come across, at least to me, as slightly patronizing; though I’m sure it’s unintentional. The fact remains that two of these all singing, all dancing machines ended up in the oggin.
On an average offshore flight, probably 90% of the flying is conducted fully coupled which means a 5,000 hour (experienced in offshore work only) pilot has around 500 hours manual flying under his belt. Narrow this down to manual flying where it counts – normally on the approach and landing – and you can reduce this figure considerably.
Now bring in, for example, the Air France and Asiana crashes where it was demonstratively obvious the crews lacked manual flying skills (now resulting in increasing concern among the FW world) and to me the whole indicate an erosion in manual handling skills coupled with a lack of understanding, or improper use of, the automated systems. To which of course, the disciples of automation will reply that more training is required in the use of the systems and those that express concerns should enter (or be dragged into) the 21st century.
And of course, they’re correct in this context.
But I’m puzzled as to why there is only a slight mention of manual skills; almost as though they’re taken for granted. I do feel there should more emphasis than shown on this thread placed on pure poling. Or is it that these skills are, in fact, not taken for granted and instead there’s a recognition that by virtue of today’s operations they are inevitably degraded and therefore we should concentrate on the technology available?
In any event, as one example, I think it would do no harm and probably a lot of good to include in the obligatory items in a visual OPC (and any other training session in the aircraft) a period of intense manual handling, particularly at night, without emergencies (other than the standard few minutes of AP out), coupled with a determination to counter the bean counter’s aversion to non-revenue flying.