AirRabbit and Rat5, if I may interject regarding "monitored approaches". There appears to be some talking at cross purposes on this and other threads where this is discussed. Can I try to offer some clarification here?
I have used this procedure approximately 8000 times, as both Captain and First Officer, in types ranging from primitive large turboprops to the A320 and B747-400, for non-precision to cat 3b approaches, and would have used it with a HUD if BAW had taken up its initial plan to buy CRJs in 1992. I was trained by WG Baillie, who I believe first formalised use of the term "monitored approach" - but not the idea which goes back probably to the 1930s. Rat5 refers to the BAW (BEA/BOAC) usage and I drafted much of the wording for BA's operational policy which I believe remains unchanged since I retired.
What many people on PPRune seem to be familiar with are specific PARTIAL implementations of the "monitored approach" procedure, as interpreted by individual operators: for example only WITH autopilot, only WITHOUT autopilot, only in Cat 2 or 3, only with certain other weather conditions, only if it's the Captain landing, etc ........
These different partial applications have generated huge amounts of misunderstanding. If that's what you're told it is, then naturally you end up thinking it's "the whole thing". But it can end up very confusing when someone who's been told it's a "manual flight only" procedure is trying to discuss the pros and cons with someone who thinks it's only used in Cat 3 for fully automatic landings, and the Captain takes control at 1000ft ! (I am not saying those specifics apply to either of you, but there are lots of others reading this and an academic survey in 2004 demonstrated exactly that problem.)
To take a step back and look at the whole subject, a good simple overall definition is found in for example the ICAO/FSF/FAA Controlled Flight into Terrain Training Aid, published about 10 years ago. Recommendation 2.1.6 describes it, correctly in my opinion, in these terms: "the First Officer will fly approaches and missed approaches. The Captain will monitor approach progress and subsequently land the aircraft after obtaining sufficient visual reference". Note, no reference to autopilots or other technology.
For relevant environmental conditions, it says "The majority of CFIT incidents/accidents are known to occur in IMC and at night, when the pilot flying the approach also lands the aircraft....... It is recommended that operators consider adopting a monitored approach procedure during approaches and missed approaches conducted in these conditions [i.e. in IMC and at night]. No mention of Cat 3/2/1, ILS/NPA or other instrument approach types, etc.
If that "in IMC and at night" recommendation were adopted then it becomes the normal SOP, and concerns about training for it as a "different" or "additional" procedure, or that there is an assumption that everything is 100% serviceable, simply evaporate. That said, AirRabbit's concerns about "feel" etc. on taking control are perfectly understandable, but from my experience turn out not to be significant factors compared to the many other benefits, and go away after training and a very little on line practice.
The specific topic of this thread is training and continued familiarity with manual flying in automated aircraft. Where managements need to deal with the dilemma of "autoflight is safer - but manual flying is still needed", the use of PMA procedures as standard could provide part of the solution.
Manual flying for pilot practice and familiarity provides a long term safety benefit, but it needs to be done in benign conditions, when the notional reduction in safety levels of not using the automatics can be balanced against the greater error tolerance of having fewer "threats". Even so, this may not be acceptable to many managements, unless additional safety measures are put in place. The demonstrated greater effectiveness of monitoring using PMA is exactly the sort of additional precaution needed. For example, during a normal sector in benign conditions the Captain would have good visual cues, etc., and plenty of "spare capacity".
Under these circumstances the First Officer could safely concentrate on flying a MANUAL instrument approach, in the full knowledge that the Captain will be taking control himself either approaching DH/DA minima, or at a higher altitude and with full visual reference, in the event that the F/O experiences difficulties.
All these issues are discussed at some length in a website dedicated to the subject, but I can't give you more information here as references to it seem to result in the post being deleted. You can PM me for details if you want.
Last edited by slast; 26th Apr 2015 at 11:44.