Originally Posted by de facto
The salient portion of the SAFO referenced in
de facto’s reference, above, says the following:
Operators are encouraged to take an integrated approach by incorporating emphasis of manual flight operations into both line operations and training (initial/upgrade and recurrent). Operational policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure there are appropriate opportunities for pilots to exercise manual flying skills, such as in non-RVSM airspace and during low workload conditions. In addition, policies should be developed or reviewed to ensure that pilots understand when to use the automated systems, such as during high workload conditions or airspace procedures that require use of autopilot for precise operations. Augmented crew operations may also limit the ability of some pilots to obtain practice in manual flight operations. Airline operational policies should ensure that all pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise the aforementioned knowledge and skills in flight operations.
It appears there is not only no FAA prohibition against a pilot’s remaining proficient in “manually controlled flight operations,” this document indicates that the FAA has suggested that airlines develop and incorporate policies that ensure pilots have the appropriate opportunities to exercise such manual flight operating skills.
In the US, at least, a decision maker at any US airline cannot say that having a formalized process for ensuring their pilots achieve and maintain manual flight operating skills is NOT authorized by the regulator. Therefore, those airlines that do have such a formalized process have decided that the benefits of having such a program outweigh whatever detriments might be cited; and, those airlines that do not have such a formalized process have either chosen to not make such a decision or have decided that the detriments of having such a program do, in fact, outweigh the benefits.
May I suggest that those persons who believe the detriments do, indeed, outweigh the benefits, are very likely not aviators themselves and, dare I say it, probably should NOT be making decisions about the process by which the pilots working for them obtain and maintain their competency. Logic would very likely reveal that the long-term success of an operation with such leadership is, most definitely, not assured. Of course, if that person is the owner or a significant purse-string holder – it may be that this person is involved in the business only for as long as it is beneficial to him or her.
The alternative, equally applicable to all aviation operations, would be for the regulator to define in the rules, the requirements for training, proficiency, as well as for recurrent training and maintaining individual competency. Believe me, I am fully aware of what it would mean for any regulatory authority to operate with unwanted and/or unwarranted intrusiveness – but if that intrusiveness could be mitigated to an acceptable degree – say by ensuring that any such regulatory authority or requirement is developed in a mutually beneficial and mutually participative atmosphere – I believe it could be beneficial to virtually everyone concerned.
However, I believe the only way such an action can be started is through an effort of the regulated to approach the regulator to propose such a process. Additionally, I am of the opinion that if it is done correctly and with full openness, I think it will work – to the advantage of all of us. What do the participants here think?