RAT 5, your views at #18 represent old school flying. I am old school, but increasingly believe that this approach will not solve modern day safety problems; the world of aviation has changed.
Aircraft have changed beyond recognition, they are easier to fly, but require much more ‘operating’.
Indeed, but I still advocate that one must have a good sound understanding of the basics of handling the a/c and how it wants to fly so that you can become a sharper operator. It is a building block process. Todays MPL courses are being completed by 148hr cadets with very basic handling experience: even very basic aviation/airborne experience. They have rigid SOP's telling them what to do when and which buttons to push when. It is a play station, not an aircraft. Guys get commands 3000-3500hrs after 4 years of those same rigid SOP's and they have no idea about the a/c, and not too much about the environment. It is still a play station. Put them outside the SOP ideal environment and they are lost. Is that healthy or professional?
I'm not sure modern a/c are easier to fly; the basics still apply. They are easier to fly very accurately in 3D due to the displayed information. What is missing in TQ's is a good grounding of what is being displayed and how to use it. I still see guys in the sim, and on line, who obviously are not looking at the MAP. VNAV/LNAV is in CMD and the FD's are centred. All must be OK with the world. Duh!
The reason I advocate the 'old school' approach is because I went from B732 to B767. I didn't dump all the good basics and start with a clean sheet. I kept the old drawings, the picture changed, added a few new lines and I coloured them in. It worked and stood me in safe stead for the next 25 years. The EFIS displays were just a different way of giving me the same basic information, in a much more useful manner, and adding some really good extra titbits. The automatics were awesome after the B732. Wow, it allowed me to be much more precise and efficient is a really relaxed manner. I could see exactly what the a/c was doing, what I wanted it to do and what it was going to do. My training was in-depth. It was company culture. Standards were set high.
The instructor, if he has the courage, and the skill should be able to hop into the seat and do a flawless demonstration without the flight director to help him.
Skill should be a given, then courage is not a problem. Indeed it should be a delight to do so. Trouble is the time required. Self-funded TR's are short of such time. It would be great to teach V1 cuts with no FD. You always ask what the rotate ATT should be. The cadet always gets it correct, but then the FD is a magnet and they over rotate and end up <V2. AT MFRA they do not attack the FD to accelerate but sit just above it with too high a V/S and thus slow acceleration. With no FD they have to fly V/S 0-200fpm i.e. look at it.
I realise I am a Boeing man and this is an Airbus thread, with more laws than my wife & mother-in-law put together. One of them was Direct, the other Alternate and I was whatever was left. However, whatever a/c you are being trained on to operate I still believe you should be able to fly a broken bird with whatever it can throw at you and which the manufacturer says should be survivable. My older MD's expected it and I'm damned sure the pax expect it.
Bring on Space Cowboys
I suspect base training is the only time guys get to handle a basic a/c. It is a hoop to jump through and show competence. Why then is it so discouraged afterwards by so many airlines? The argument is safety. I wonder if that has proved to be the case, or is it the opposite?
I suspect this will become another circular never ending discussion resurrecting the same old same old..........