Uplinker: this would only be necessary for those airlines that discourage proper pilot orientated visual approaches. Flying a raw data ILS in severe clear should be a given. In an earlier life it was most common to have the airfield in sight passing FL100 and, no matter which runway was in use, to fly manually to an efficient finals and if you spooled up before 1500' it was beer time. That was before all the new bells & whistles avionics. i.e. pilot judgement.
Yup, I agree: I used to all that stuff in Sheds (Shorts 360's), Dash 8's, and 146's, and very good fun it was too !
@wiggy, Well that is for the XAA's to say, not me. We used to have to perform and record 3 practice autolands every 6 months, of which 2 could be flown in the SIM, so I would have thought that was enough opportunity in 6 months for even the long-haul only pilots?
@Tourist; I am trying to come up with workable ideas to shift the thinking and complacency in our industry. Yes, we should all be able to fly at our limits, and indeed some of us can - I used to really enjoy all the turbulent crosswind landing practice I got at EGBB and EGNM. However, the level of such skills is dropping in our industry, and my suggestion might be a way to change the thinking and mind set - in admittedly a small way - of airlines and pilots. Some days I am too tired or, let's be honest, sometimes too lazy to hand fly. If we have had a difficult time on the ground; fire fighting delays from the GHAs, security, the wheelchair agents and slots etc., then I am probably feeling frazzled and not in the mood - I just want to get round the track and then get some rest. Having said that, I am forcing myself to do raw data approaches whenever I can - I did one this morning which wasn't too shoddy, although it was a bit high and fast! And the reason for specifying good or reasonable weather for practice is that unless some sensible ground rules are set out, airlines are not likely to embrace such a proposal - which potentially might lead to increased go-arounds - until we all get used to the idea.
Many of us used to come out of flying school and start on small turbo props or piston engined aircraft, on which we "learned the ropes" doing night freight with crusty and difficult Captains. Then we progressed onto larger turbo props and finally jets. So we have the experience and skills - as long as we can keep them sharp. But folk now are coming out of flight school having flown a small composite twin @ 3000' in good weather for, what, 120 hours? and then go flying in a 737 or 320 SIM before being put on the line ! Do they really have the depth of skill and experience that us 'oldies' do? Have they ever wrestled a turboprop safely to the ground in turbulent crosswinds at their personal limits?
The authorities need to make a decision: Are they going to allow the continued reduction of piloting skills to occur, and therefore 'accept' the occasional crash - in which case they need to justify that thinking - or are they going to do something to keep raw flying skills at the forefront of aviation practice?