From Gums:... but I am not convinced many of the nuggets have their basic skills burned-in by hours of practice and exposure to the dark side of things in their planes.
The practice of "engage otto" at 300 feet with gear up and the reverse when landing bugs me beyond anything. I don't feel all should be Chuck Yeager, but if we can't fly the profile without using otto, then we should not be flying at all. But I never flew a profile that I had to use otto versus my own skills/eperience, and remember that otto has ZERO experience.
I find it amusing that many interviews still include a sim check where it is common to fly a basic IR profile without FD or A/T. Then, in that same airline you are, near as damn it, forbidden do such such a dangerous thing again. Same goes for base training: a manually flown circuit with only Mk1 eyeball guidance, but don't let them catch you doing such a heinous thing on line. If you can't fly a procedural ILS raw data, including a hold and reversal turn to finals ILS and GA, you should not be there. Computers fail and must be able to maintain SA and cope with achieving a safe arrival.
Peekay4: some interesting observations and comments about human reactions. It is an old chestnut that to fly an a/c you "push on stick = houses get bigger: pull back on stick = houses get smaller: keep pulling back = houses get bigger again."
We all know that, but you went on to say that to do the opposite of what is instinctive you need to know e.g. you are in a stall. There has been much discussion about this on this thread and Tech Log (FD in a stall) thread. Is the stall warning on AB, or any a/c, sufficient to make your training kick in and combat the panic? I know nothing of AB warnings, but the Boeing Stick Shaker is unmissable.
In old tech a/c, at a stall there was often a stick shaker and a pusher/nudger. If you/A.P hadn't trimmed too much you could even just let go and the a/c would possibly lower the nose slightly by itself. What happens with FBW at the stall if you let go? Does it hold the attitude à la CWS?
From the human factors point of view what I think needs considering: in AF & QZ they had an enormous amount of air beneath them; perhaps time to let go and start analysing, but they didn't. (in my world of paragliders it is often the pilot, in a panic, who makes UAR worse. Often letting go allows the aerodynamics to start the recovery process.) In 'close to the ground stalls' the training has a much greater difficulty combating the panic of rapidly rising ground. Similarly it would be difficult, without extreme training and practice, to know when in a car incident it is better to use power rather than brakes.
However, one would hope, that an unmissable STALL visual AND audible warning + stick shaker (tactile) would not be ignored and training would kick in. That training involves use of stick, thrust levers, attention to instruments. We know that under stress your ears shut down, hence the addition of a powerful visual warning. Designers could also include that the a/c will attempt to recover if you just let go.
Those with more knowledge of current FBW actions and future designs could share it with us.
Last edited by RAT 5; 20th Dec 2015 at 18:55.