HC you have changed your tune from a previous thread when you assured me it was in the passengers' interests that the automatics were used as much as possible.
so how did you have credibility as a SAR trainer if you couldn't do it as well as the crews you were 'training'? That is certainly something that wouldn't have passed muster in the mil.
1/ No I don't think I said that. It is in the passengers' interests that the automatics be used as much as possible in poor conditions / at night. When there are reasonably good visual references it is a good thing to fly manually especially for the young chaps with limited exposure to manual flying. But even in poor conditions/at night the very last bit had to be flown manually since we don't have auto-land but typically by then you are very close and the visual references are OK even if the vis is poor.
2/ Oh the winderful mil. If only everything could be run by the mil there would be no more accidents!
But you misunderstand the structure of civilian training. I was a TRE on the L2, I was not a SAR pilot. In order to be a SAR pilot you have to have a licence, and in order to have a licence you need to be able to do, and be tested on, such things as OEI Cat A procedures, procedural instrument approaches etc. In other words, pass an LPC. That was my role, doing type conversions onto the L2 and taking LSTs, LPCs and OPCs, technical ground school refresher etc. This ticked the necessary box for them to be a licenced L2 pilot. There was then another set of Line Trainers who were the SAR experts, would train and test for the SAR-specific elements which of course on a day to day basis was the most important bit.
That was my problem, some of the pilots didn't see why they needed to be able to do all the stuff in a standard LPC since some was not relevant to their role. But of course my answer was that in order to be a SAR pilot you first need to be a pilot with a licence.