Yes, but back to my question of AB pilots: if you are making an approach, of any sort, but especially a manually flown approach with ATHR engaged, where is your inside hand?
AB pilots have said that they need to increase their scan to include N1% gauges to monitor the ATHR system. To me this is increased work load at a time you might not find it the most convenient. On some a/c, with PFD and speed tape & speed trend vector display, as speed increases or reduces you can see the speed vector move. If the correct thrust adjustment is made you see the trend vector respond in the opposite sense. I'm not suggesting tunnel vision scan, but this important information is in your central scan. If using ATHR with moving levers you can 'feel' the a/c respond, then see its effect. If manual thrust then you apply the correction yourself and see the result. It's using more senses and having a solid feedback loop in your brain. IMHO you are more 'engaged' with the a/c. It is intuitive. If you have set a datum thrust for the phase of flight you can monitor speed and make a nudge forward of backwards as appropriate; or feel the ATHR do the same. You then follow up that sense with a quick scan of the N1% gauges.
Back to my earlier thought about the basic design philosophy of AB. This is not a FBW thing, but a whole a/c design thought. It may be true of EB and others as well. I wonder if the basic concept was to design an a/c that would fly approaches automatically, via ILS, LNAV/VNAV, RNAV, MLS etc. Program the approach in the FMC, engage the automatics and monitor. At minimums, no autoland, the human intervenes (gwad forbid) and attempts to bring a/c back to earth safely. Thus PF is really PM of the automatics. The non-handling pilot is then PM of the other PM/PF. The big difference between the two is one moves the gear & flaps, the other doesn't. One plants it on the ground or monitors the a/c do it and then one taxis the a/c. With 2 PM's I wonder how alert the PNF/PM is?
The certifying authorities need to ensure the human (let's call them pilots) could takeover if HAL goes awol to walkabout. That was seen by the designers as last resort, not the norm. Thus the depth of training to do such things is minimal, and the amount of 'on the line' practice is likewise. Many managements don't like pilots intervening and screwing up; so it's automatics to the max. Safer, cheaper, smoother.
All this might be great if operating from the major airport hubs. Perhaps the fully automatic a/c works great there. Take it out of its comfort zone and the basic design might not be quite so good. If you started with an a/c system design to operate in Africa, the Greek islands, Nepal, Indonesian islands would you have created the modern AB solution? Yet that is where they operate.
Note this is nothing about FBW; it is about the extent of automatics. The B737NG is very capable of flying, using automatics, from 400' on take off to a full autoland ILS or automatic NPA to MDA. It's more about the way there a/c is managed.
We hear many times from human factors professors that humans are not the best monitors of automatic systems, especially for hours on end. Airlines demand a high education from their plot recruits and then, due to a/c design, put them in a place they are ill-designed for. When airlines buy expensive a/c they buy the best design to suit the route demands. The same with the military. You try to balance and match your resources to maximise success of the operation. I wonder if modern automatic a/c, and the type of pilot in charge, is the best combination. Have modern high tech a/c been designed with human pilots in mind, or are they dream of lab' technocrats; designed because they can be? Has it all been necessary, and has it all been for the best? Will the future become better, or will it steam full ahead with the pilots out of the loop? Will they be given new toys and then enter the trained monkey system and be forced to adapt their natural skills to learn how to play with them? Square pegs, round holes. Are a/c best suited to those who should be managing them. If the technocrats win the argument and a/c continue to become more automatic, then the ground environment needs to keep pace: and, perhaps a different sort of human needs to be the PF/PM.
It seems to me that the technology is advancing at a much faster rate than any other link in the chain; because it can. It is all sold on cost benefit. The customers lap that up and so new a/c are designed in the R & D centres. Meanwhile the XAA's are so far removed from this that pilot training, checking, monitoring is still in the dark ages relative to the task involved. The certifiers are involved in that the a/c have to jump through time tested hoops. All the other links in the chain, including the pilots, as well. Is this the best way forward? Should thee be different hoops?
In some theatres a much more simple a/c is demanded, e.g. DH twin otter in Papua NG mountains. An automatic AB/Boeing type a/c would not work. That requires special pilot skills. B747 flying short hops in Japan is very different than a conventional long-haul B747 operation. Different pilot mind set. The same is true of the USA commuter market. Pilots fly in/out of tiny strips, but also JFK & Chicago. Different mind set and skills. Eventually, if it continues, all a/c may become FBW with associated automatic systems, but the pilot skills will still be very varied. Yet the basic training & checking will still be the same to obtain & maintain the licence the world over.
Perhaps it's time for a think tank or brains trust to sit down and have a good hard analysis about the world wide industry, its requirements and how best to create the ideal balance between the human and the task at hand. Even the a/c designers. Have a feedback loop from the customers and ask them if the suppliers are on the right track for the operators.