So ultimately it is a business after all and the best airline is not the one with best pilots but with maximum profits.
Vilas: thank you for that insight into AB's standard TR syllabus. I had heard that with their new generation a/c they were going even more back to basics. I wonder if other manufacturers, Boeing in particular, have the same ideas. Considering the recent, too many, crashes of reasonably serviceable a/c perhaps the authorities who are responsible for over-seeing training/crew certification standards should open their eyes and become active in defining what the training MUST involve and not just the old style regurgitated TR syllabus which hasn't changed since 1980, to my knowledge. The required items on an LST form have been there for eons. In my experience some airlines have substituted rigid SOP's for in-depth training. Stick rigidly to the rigid SOP's and you'll be OK. Trained monkey comes to mind.
Ref' your closing statement it reminds me of "if you thought safety investment was expensive wait until you have an accident." Somehow that seems not to be quite so prevalent as it used to be. Cost/risk management seems the game today.
Duper: So why do we fly routinly with FDs on? Why not keep them on as an aid to hand flying as and when required?
Great question and one which I think needs a real serious considered debate. With A/P in use they are nigh on useless, and indeed hinder the monitoring process. Hand flying they can be useful, but need monitoring via raw data.
If you ask the many XAA"s your question I would not be surprised by either of these answers. "we've always done it that way since they were invented." ..."I don't understand the question." I suspect the debate will encounter huge inertia, but don't give up. What about the technical committee of ECA?
Last edited by RAT 5; 18th Dec 2015 at 16:28.