I hope that a regular contributor Rainboe doesn't mind if I copy and paste something he wrote on automation complacency which is currently under the Rumour and News Forum under the original post headline of "Turkish Airliner crashes at Schipol. This thread on Rumours and News is running parallel to the Australian thread and is really worth reading from the start.

Rubbish! That's what it's all about! :ok:

In another life as simulator instructor, sometimes you had a student getting quite uptight and tense and made worse by the PNF singing out all the time "support" calls with a continuous calling of 'SPEED - AIRSPEED - SINK RATE - TRACKING" and so on. Yes it was "shouting" too. Enough to drive anyone mad - although in theory he was only sticking to the SOP's. But of course there is a time and place for everything and this almost constituted stupidity

So depending on spare time of 15 minutes or so, I would haul the PNF away for a cup of coffee and close the sim door and tell the pilot to enjoy himself on a few touch and go circuits solo. Not a soul in the cockpit. In the simulator hall you could always hear the roar of reverse thrust on the final landing when time was up. Out of the simulator would step a smiling happy confident pilot. Worked wonders I tell you.

Stick them in a C172 or a Drifter. Or better still a C185 once every 6 months between SIM's

Would remind them a heap, and reward many with fun and enthusiasm they have not had in years.

Many of the RPT pilots here do this anyway I know, and I wonder what they think it does for keeping their brains alert and muscle memory acute!

Chimbu Warrior and Chuckles would no doubt agree, what about the others?

Kelly,
You'll go far with an attitude like that.

Fathom,
If you're easily coping with track shortening, then you're wasting fuel. :=

Bloggs

From these two statements:

track shortening can get ugly and Rubbish! That's what it's all about!

you have skillfully deduced that easily coping with track shortening infers you are wasting fuel.

I must have skipped class that day. :E

This is a good thread.

Regarding the last couple of posts.

Whether you are wasting fuel by being in a position to accept track shortening is irrelavent to this particular discussion. The original question was aimed at the use of automatics, not fuel.

I think we can all agree that refusing track shortening on a star does not neccesarily constitute an over reliance of automatics.

Donk

hongkongfooey apology accepted.

I agree that GA doesn’t teach us to fly a fully automated A320 but, it does teach us to fly it when the automatics start misbehaving by reverting to the scarebus’s pseudo manual flight system.

It’s no different to a light aeroplane then. Pull stick back, aeroplane pitches up yada yada. The problem in my view is that the new gen pilots who learn the basics in the sim won’t see these automated jets as just user-friendly aeroplanes, but as computers to manage. Computers you can trust. They won’t know any different.

I feel that the experience gained in GA is under-rated by some for whatever reasons. Just because some developed countries manage to manifest airline pilots without a GA industry doesn’t mean it’s not the best training ground for countries that do.

Just to add to the debate, unusual attitude training is a must for when things go pear shaped.

Quite right. I understand that Boeing have a simulation package to cover unusual attitude recovery training. The only problem is the simulated attitudes are relatively benign with a maximun bank angle of around 45 degrees and nose up of 25 degrees and nose low of 10 degrees. It does not address the severe unusual attitudes that were recorded on FDR's of accident aircraft such as those discussed in this and other similar discussions on Pprune.

There is a big difference between seeing a screen at 90deg with the sim leaning to one side and hanging in the straps with your nav bag on the roof and all the dust on the floor falling into you eyes... not that I didn’t enjoy rolling the sim through 360deg :E:E :ok:

If you're talking about boeing yes that is correct, if you're talking about an Airbus then that isn't necessarily true. You never control the aircraft until you start turning off the protection modes.

Maybe the allocated training sim sessions required to obtain a type rating do not go far enough. For the new age culture of pay as you go, how many for example have tried to cut corners by completing an outdated type followed by ''differences training''?
A fresh type rating barely scratches the surface especially when it comes to learning the automatics.
Automatics work fine in most instances until one is put outside their routine.

How many times has one announced''autopilot x to command'' without referencing the FMA?And lets not talk about AWR manual mode and its use.

Today's new culture and its direction was attempted to be addressed by the Hudson hero but how many actually paid attention to his emphasis on the lack of training and future consequences of such critical failure?
Latent failure introduction? And exoneration by the shrinking of op's manuals, and the PIC has final whatever.
But the press have better things to report on,and our unions something to lobby about and make public or the authority to actually address this ''human anomaly'' in the inexpensive cost effective culture that has migrated from the O'leary school of management.

Interesting article in the latest Flight International:

Thomson crews undergo eye tracking evaluation

I wonder if a GA jockey with a couple of thousand hours hand flying would be better than a 200hr jet-SIM MPL in this regard? :ooh: I would say YES. We all need practice to stay good at it, But would an MPL ever have it in the first place?

Please explain

In a Boeing you turn off the autopilot and autothrottle it becomes just like every other aeroplane you've flown. In an Airbus you turn off the autopilot and you still only have a rate of change controller. You don't actually control the aeroplane directly. In a boeing I could crank it over to a 45 degree AoB but I couldn't do that in an Airbus, the computer would overrule me. To make a Airbus something resembling an aeroplane you would have to turn off the protection modes and go to something resembling manual reversion.

Sure about that one Nev?

If you fly the bus you might want to do some more reading, if you don't you are making statements based on ignorance. Anyway, in airline operations, why would you ever want to "crank it over" to 45 degrees let alone more? Control laws in the Airbus allow a full normal range of control deflection, you would only find them intruding on your skygodlike inputs when reaching what would be considered by any normal definition, to be an unusual attitude.

Thats just plain BS. The usual anti Airbus sentiment, probably from someone who has never touched one. By the way, Direct Law on the bus is nothing like manual reversion in the Boeing.

Yet more BS. For a start there is no such thing as "protection modes". The aircraft has control laws. I am also pretty sure that Airbus aircraft aren't flying around the sky not being "controlled" by the pilots.

This is not a thread discussing the pros/cons of Boeing v Airbus, it is about the flying abillity, or lack thereof, of the people charged with the responsibility of flying them, whether Airbus or Boeing. Why do people feel the need to slag off Airbus or Boeing based on their own experience and lack of knowledge? I have seen pilots who would struggle to fly either with everything turned off (in this case I would prefer to be in the airbus). Conversely I fly with people who could fly a house brick if you could get it off the ground. Mainly because they are keen, interested and knowledgeable pilots who work hard to maintain their flying skills, both with the stick and the automatics.