Is it really that hard...
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Most U.S. carriers have gone to 1000 feet stable over the last decade it seems. Of course, if you don't realize that you are 400 feet RA eight miles out until the controller tells you and you hear the EGWPS stable approach criteria may not save you.
Also, the go around policy itself affects the decision to proceed with less than optimum safety margins. Some overseas carriers apparently still have you fill out paperwork if you go around. The trend in recent years has been for the safety folks to complain that we aren't doing enough go arounds off of unstable approaches.
Some discussion of the no fault go around policy in this 2008 thread:
No fault go around policy
At some third world expat jobs you'd be fired on the spot for an incident like the one in the GCAA DME report. I'm sure EK is not like that. At least the pilots were deadheaded back to base before they were fired I presume. Actually, I'd like to think that they were retrained and put back on the line but somehow I doubt it. Anybody know?
Will the GCAA issue a report soon on the JFK incident?
Also, the go around policy itself affects the decision to proceed with less than optimum safety margins. Some overseas carriers apparently still have you fill out paperwork if you go around. The trend in recent years has been for the safety folks to complain that we aren't doing enough go arounds off of unstable approaches.
Some discussion of the no fault go around policy in this 2008 thread:
No fault go around policy
At some third world expat jobs you'd be fired on the spot for an incident like the one in the GCAA DME report. I'm sure EK is not like that. At least the pilots were deadheaded back to base before they were fired I presume. Actually, I'd like to think that they were retrained and put back on the line but somehow I doubt it. Anybody know?
Will the GCAA issue a report soon on the JFK incident?
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba
Actually, I'd like to think that they were retrained and put back on the line but somehow I doubt it. Anybody know?
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dubai
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Airbubba Will the GCAA issue a report soon on the JFK incident?
Why was there no investigation from any US authority concerning the A380 JFK event ?
No FAA investigation nothing from the NTSB and nothing from the GCAA
AVHERALD has a link to the JFK incident / near accident on the 4th Dec 2017 here
Shameful how it was handled by the company
Even more Shameful how GCAA chose not to investigate
GCAA seems to suffer from dementia or maybe Alzheimer’s as 2019 events never saw the light of day from both fleets
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Not going to happen
Why was there no investigation from any US authority concerning the A380 JFK event ?
No FAA investigation nothing from the NTSB and nothing from the GCAA
AVHERALD has a link to the JFK incident / near accident on the 4th Dec 2017 here
Why was there no investigation from any US authority concerning the A380 JFK event ?
No FAA investigation nothing from the NTSB and nothing from the GCAA
AVHERALD has a link to the JFK incident / near accident on the 4th Dec 2017 here
On Dec 12th 2017 the FAA told The Aviation Herald in response to the inquiry of Dec 9th 2017 (and an initial reply the same day that the FAA needed to check): "Emirates Airline EK-207, an Airbus A380, landed safely on Runway 13L [sic - they actually landed on 22L after the go around - Airbubba] at John F Kennedy International Airport, December 4, 2017 at 8:26 pm after initiating a go around due to a low altitude alert. The FAA is investigating."
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the location of where an incident or accident occurs, eventually determines which investigative authority has the responsibility to investigate, which can be delegated to another state if required?
I understand the IAC in Russia will publish the DME report and the NTSB would have the duty of investigating what happened at JFK. Given that both entities have far more experience in incident and accident investigation, the GCAA would merely play a supporting role.
I understand the IAC in Russia will publish the DME report and the NTSB would have the duty of investigating what happened at JFK. Given that both entities have far more experience in incident and accident investigation, the GCAA would merely play a supporting role.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't the location of where an incident or accident occurs, eventually determines which investigative authority has the responsibility to investigate, which can be delegated to another state if required?
I understand the IAC in Russia will publish the DME report and the NTSB would have the duty of investigating what happened at JFK. Given that both entities have far more experience in incident and accident investigation, the GCAA would merely play a supporting role.
I understand the IAC in Russia will publish the DME report and the NTSB would have the duty of investigating what happened at JFK. Given that both entities have far more experience in incident and accident investigation, the GCAA would merely play a supporting role.
From the GCAA final report:
This Investigation was conducted by the Air Accident Investigation Sector of the United Arab Emirates pursuant to Civil Aviation Law No. 20 of 1991, in compliance with Air Accident and Incident Investigation Regulations, and in conformance with the requirements of Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
This Investigation was conducted independently and without prejudice. The sole objective of the investigation is to prevent future aircraft accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.
The Air Accident Investigation Sector of the United Arab Emirates issued this Final Report in accordance with National and International Standards and best practice. Consultation with applicable stakeholders, and consideration of their comments, took place prior to the publication of this Report.
Occurrence Brief
AAIS Case No: AIFN/0010/2017
Operator/owner: Emirates
Aircraft make and model: Airbus A380-861
Registration mark: A6-EEZ
MSN: 0158
Number and type of engines: Four, Alliance (EA) GP7270
Date and time (UTC): 10 September 2017, 1753 UTC
Place: Domodedovo International Airport, Moscow
Category: Transport (Passenger)
Persons on board: 448
Injuries: Nil
Investigation Process
This occurrence was notified by the Operator to the AAIS by phone call to the Duty Investigator (DI) Hotline Number +971 50 641 4667.
The Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (FATA) as the representation of the State of Occurrence delegated the Investigation to the AAIS being the State of Registry and of the Operator.
After the Initial Investigation phase, the occurrence was classified as a 'Serious Incident', and the AAIS assigned an investigation file number, AIFN/0010/2017, to the case.
The AAIS formed an Investigation team led by an investigator-in-charge (IIC). The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) of French, being the State of Manufacture and Design of the Aircraft, the Federal Air Transport Agency (FATA) of the Russian Federation, being the State of Occurrence, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States, being the State of Manufacture of the flight management system (FMS) installed in the Aircraft, were notified of the Incident. The BEA assigned an Accredited Representative who was assisted by Advisers from the Airbus. The FATA provided all required information to the AAIS for the purpose of the Investigation. The NTSB assisted by Advisors from Honeywell (FMS Manufacturer) provided the FMS analysis for the purpose of the Investigation.
This Investigation was conducted independently and without prejudice. The sole objective of the investigation is to prevent future aircraft accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability.
The Air Accident Investigation Sector of the United Arab Emirates issued this Final Report in accordance with National and International Standards and best practice. Consultation with applicable stakeholders, and consideration of their comments, took place prior to the publication of this Report.
Occurrence Brief
AAIS Case No: AIFN/0010/2017
Operator/owner: Emirates
Aircraft make and model: Airbus A380-861
Registration mark: A6-EEZ
MSN: 0158
Number and type of engines: Four, Alliance (EA) GP7270
Date and time (UTC): 10 September 2017, 1753 UTC
Place: Domodedovo International Airport, Moscow
Category: Transport (Passenger)
Persons on board: 448
Injuries: Nil
Investigation Process
This occurrence was notified by the Operator to the AAIS by phone call to the Duty Investigator (DI) Hotline Number +971 50 641 4667.
The Russian Federal Air Transport Agency (FATA) as the representation of the State of Occurrence delegated the Investigation to the AAIS being the State of Registry and of the Operator.
After the Initial Investigation phase, the occurrence was classified as a 'Serious Incident', and the AAIS assigned an investigation file number, AIFN/0010/2017, to the case.
The AAIS formed an Investigation team led by an investigator-in-charge (IIC). The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’Analyses (BEA) of French, being the State of Manufacture and Design of the Aircraft, the Federal Air Transport Agency (FATA) of the Russian Federation, being the State of Occurrence, and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of the United States, being the State of Manufacture of the flight management system (FMS) installed in the Aircraft, were notified of the Incident. The BEA assigned an Accredited Representative who was assisted by Advisers from the Airbus. The FATA provided all required information to the AAIS for the purpose of the Investigation. The NTSB assisted by Advisors from Honeywell (FMS Manufacturer) provided the FMS analysis for the purpose of the Investigation.
Airbus: Strongly recommends to fly raw data in line operations and the maximum use of automation is discouraged by Airbus.
Source: WIN by Airbus: Operationnal Philosophy/ Use of Automation/ Manual Flying Policy. They released for the second time in December 2019 a video warning us about the paramount importance of hand flying raw data in daily operations but oh well some airlines still think it’s ok to ignore the manufacturer recommendations...
Not going to start this debate again , but my personal opinion has always been--spend more sim time hand flying raw data approaches rather than those time wasting LOFT exercises . Fixed base trainer and line checks should sort you out . Hopefully that's what happens these days ( I've been out of the game for a while...)
(p.s do they still wear uniforms in the ME sims ? My Far East outfit had a more enlightened approach to this ; dealing with problems in the jumbo always seemed easier in civvies ( for some reason).
The thread opener asked the simple question "It's not that difficult, is it ? - or something like it. No, it is dead easy ,actually. Not going to enter the debate again but we are stuck with the industry forcing us into procedures dictated by the Bean Counters. We have gone from being pilots and airmen to button pushers. All heads under the coming, furiously resolving problems through the FMC with no-one looking out of the window has led to incident after incident . Those who support this brush off with the annoying comment ; "Yeah, well, that's how we dot it ".
I received fantastic pilot training at Oxford Air Training School in 1971. Many much cleverer bods than me taught me the 3 degree principle which could put you in the "frame" wherever you were. Range to touch times three puts you in the picture wherever you are whatever your in . Worked for me from Cherokees to A340 with lots in between.
The guys in question at 8 miles out should be around..........er........2400ft. What the F were they doing at 400ft ? Oooooops, heads down, resolve through the FMC. Yeah, right.
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
I received fantastic pilot training at Oxford Air Training School in 1971. Many much cleverer bods than me taught me the 3 degree principle which could put you in the "frame" wherever you were. Range to touch times three puts you in the picture wherever you are whatever your in . Worked for me from Cherokees to A340 with lots in between.
The guys in question at 8 miles out should be around..........er........2400ft. What the F were they doing at 400ft ? Oooooops, heads down, resolve through the FMC. Yeah, right.
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Dubai - sand land.
Age: 55
Posts: 2,832
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Gordomac
The guys in question at 8 miles out should be around..........er........2400ft. What the F were they doing at 400ft ? Oooooops, heads down, resolve through the FMC. Yeah, right.
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
Thread Starter
The thread opener asked the simple question "It's not that difficult, is it ? - or something like it. No, it is dead easy ,actually. Not going to enter the debate again but we are stuck with the industry forcing us into procedures dictated by the Bean Counters. We have gone from being pilots and airmen to button pushers. All heads under the coming, furiously resolving problems through the FMC with no-one looking out of the window has led to incident after incident . Those who support this brush off with the annoying comment ; "Yeah, well, that's how we dot it ".
I received fantastic pilot training at Oxford Air Training School in 1971. Many much cleverer bods than me taught me the 3 degree principle which could put you in the "frame" wherever you were. Range to touch times three puts you in the picture wherever you are whatever your in . Worked for me from Cherokees to A340 with lots in between.
The guys in question at 8 miles out should be around..........er........2400ft. What the F were they doing at 400ft ? Oooooops, heads down, resolve through the FMC. Yeah, right.
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
I received fantastic pilot training at Oxford Air Training School in 1971. Many much cleverer bods than me taught me the 3 degree principle which could put you in the "frame" wherever you were. Range to touch times three puts you in the picture wherever you are whatever your in . Worked for me from Cherokees to A340 with lots in between.
The guys in question at 8 miles out should be around..........er........2400ft. What the F were they doing at 400ft ? Oooooops, heads down, resolve through the FMC. Yeah, right.
No chaps, it is not difficult . But keep the focus on button pushing, systems knowledge (what is it doing now, (?)- systems) , and we will have a lot more of this .
There are so many clues in modern cockpits which show you distance to run, but **** happens.
Captain Warren Vanderburgh's vid "Children of the Magenta" is a must IMHO training commercial pilots.
Here is a similar event (CAVOK, darkness):
Incident: Thai A359 at Frankfurt on Jan 1st 2020, about 800 feet AGL about 7nm from touch down
It makes a huge difference when a company has a safety culture rather than a blame and punitive culture.... pilots should be safe from persecution for a GA etc and anonymous reporting also help I'm not singling any particular company here. Just something I think is important to bring up this topic.
I do believe for most part the safety culture is out there and it is working.
I do believe for most part the safety culture is out there and it is working.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Doctor's waiting room
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Posts: 946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Phantom I hope you are joking there cause that's the exact opposite of what is recommended... xD
Please check out the Airbus videos: https://www.airbus-win.com/ All I said above is from there. There is no debate to have. This is a real issue.
According to Airbus, one third of the accidents, the main cause are the lack of flying skills.
I do agree with you that the simulator sessions should be reviewed to emphasize more on hand flying.
In my outfit, we do it every 6 months. Is that enough to be safe? Definitely not. Hand flying should be done regularly in the real plane. Against, that's not coming from me but from Airbus itself. I personally can feel degradation in my scan and accuracy just within just few weeks when I don't do raw data for a while.
For the 6 years I have been flying Airbus, I have been to the sim with many different cpts and fos and it's always the skippers who are reluctant to fly raw data in line operations who have serious issue in the simulator. That's not a coincidence...
Please check out the Airbus videos: https://www.airbus-win.com/ All I said above is from there. There is no debate to have. This is a real issue.
According to Airbus, one third of the accidents, the main cause are the lack of flying skills.
I do agree with you that the simulator sessions should be reviewed to emphasize more on hand flying.
In my outfit, we do it every 6 months. Is that enough to be safe? Definitely not. Hand flying should be done regularly in the real plane. Against, that's not coming from me but from Airbus itself. I personally can feel degradation in my scan and accuracy just within just few weeks when I don't do raw data for a while.
For the 6 years I have been flying Airbus, I have been to the sim with many different cpts and fos and it's always the skippers who are reluctant to fly raw data in line operations who have serious issue in the simulator. That's not a coincidence...
Last edited by pineteam; 21st Apr 2020 at 11:12. Reason: typo
pineteam;
I agree with your sentiments entirely . I recall a DC10 accident from many years ago ; this particular aircraft had a known autothrottle defect ; it would not hold the commanded speed . On a night approach to a short(ish) contaminated runway , it maintained VRef +20 all the way down finals . The Captain did not disconnect A/T , the jet landed hot and inevitably aquaplaned off the end of the runway into the river at the end and broke in two ... Fortunately all survived ( as i recall ) .
The accident report stated that the Captain was simply too afraid to take manual control of the thrust because he hadn't done it for a very long time . No excuse for that ; but a rare anomaly . In those days , the Atlantic Baron types were pretty good at handling their classic aircraft ..
Unfortunately , in these days of RVSM/RNP/ANP/TCAS etc etc and a crowded airspace at most international destinations , the situation does not lend itself easily to manual flying as we used to know it . Modern aircraft are designed to be flown by the automatics . Doing anything else seriously overloads the monitoring capabilities of the PM --trying to watch your flying like a hawk , making mode selections , handling ATC stuff / frequency changes while also looking out for other traffic . He's a busy boy / girl ..In addition , the flight data Big Brother is also busy reporting your every move back to base--in real time .The result ? Too many people have forgotten how to FLY .
My suggestion years ago was for the company to buy a Pitts special or something similar and roster everyone to go and have some hands on fun once a month . Of course , that idea got nowhere .
I agree with your sentiments entirely . I recall a DC10 accident from many years ago ; this particular aircraft had a known autothrottle defect ; it would not hold the commanded speed . On a night approach to a short(ish) contaminated runway , it maintained VRef +20 all the way down finals . The Captain did not disconnect A/T , the jet landed hot and inevitably aquaplaned off the end of the runway into the river at the end and broke in two ... Fortunately all survived ( as i recall ) .
The accident report stated that the Captain was simply too afraid to take manual control of the thrust because he hadn't done it for a very long time . No excuse for that ; but a rare anomaly . In those days , the Atlantic Baron types were pretty good at handling their classic aircraft ..
Unfortunately , in these days of RVSM/RNP/ANP/TCAS etc etc and a crowded airspace at most international destinations , the situation does not lend itself easily to manual flying as we used to know it . Modern aircraft are designed to be flown by the automatics . Doing anything else seriously overloads the monitoring capabilities of the PM --trying to watch your flying like a hawk , making mode selections , handling ATC stuff / frequency changes while also looking out for other traffic . He's a busy boy / girl ..In addition , the flight data Big Brother is also busy reporting your every move back to base--in real time .The result ? Too many people have forgotten how to FLY .
My suggestion years ago was for the company to buy a Pitts special or something similar and roster everyone to go and have some hands on fun once a month . Of course , that idea got nowhere .
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 39
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately , in these days of RVSM/RNP/ANP/TCAS etc etc and a crowded airspace at most international destinations , the situation does not lend itself easily to manual flying as we used to know it . Modern aircraft are designed to be flown by the automatics . Doing anything else seriously overloads the monitoring capabilities of the PM --trying to watch your flying like a hawk , making mode selections , handling ATC stuff / frequency changes while also looking out for other traffic . He's a busy boy / girl ..In addition , the flight data Big Brother is also busy reporting your every move back to base--in real time .The result ? Too many people have forgotten how to FLY .
I'm lucky enough to work for a company where F/D and A/T off flying below RVSM is permitted and performed regularly, and just doing it every now and then makes a world of difference in your TLAR skills. And just to be clear, that doesn't make us cowboys, automation is used where appropriate.
As a final note, feel free to compile lists of incidents and accidents where under-reliance on automation was a factor, and those where over-reliance was a factor. I think everybody knows which one will be longer.
tttoon
Correct. . However , I believe the pertinent word is " regularly" . Congratulations on flying with an enlightened operator that permits you to indulge and hone your skills . However , not all operators can permit that luxury when most flights are in the longer haul category with a pax load of 300 plus , you are part of a heavy crew and there is a battle for sectors to maintain landing currency. Those folks at the back want a smooth ride which the automation delivers .
With all due respect , I don't think all pilots can guarantee to keep the needles centred perfectly on every departure/arrival (mostly RNAV these days) using raw data alone . With FD it is another matter and I believe most operators do encourage hand flying whenever practical . But RAW data on the line in a heavy jet ? I don't think so .
The simulator is the place to do LOTS of this raw data stuff . If you are not up to standard , then that is a fail . Having retired , I am not sure if this is common practice in training departments these days . It was moving in that direction when I left my last outfit .
Because neither of them regularly do it, and lack awareness. If a current commercial pilot can not fly a raw data approach in a working airplane, I'd say we have a serious problem.
With all due respect , I don't think all pilots can guarantee to keep the needles centred perfectly on every departure/arrival (mostly RNAV these days) using raw data alone . With FD it is another matter and I believe most operators do encourage hand flying whenever practical . But RAW data on the line in a heavy jet ? I don't think so .
The simulator is the place to do LOTS of this raw data stuff . If you are not up to standard , then that is a fail . Having retired , I am not sure if this is common practice in training departments these days . It was moving in that direction when I left my last outfit .
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If turning the a/p off makes for a rough flight something's not right. The autopilots do an excellent job but sometimes they're not the answer. Turning the a/t's off makes for a more enjoyable passenger experience, especially on Airbus', on approach. We have a couple of departures, typically with strict noise abatement procedures, where the a/p is required to be on. Otherwise it's a Big Boy philosophy, use automation as appropriate/desired. Most guys can adjust the level of automation to match the demands of a particular flight. VFR, day, just vectors? IMC, terrain, multiple tough restrictions to make, thunderstorms? Guys increase the level of automation.
Raw data? Few guys do it. It's not that tough to ignore the FD's and fly pitch and power until reaching an energy state where that you're hand flying matches the commands of the FD. The lazy man's raw data.
Raw data? Few guys do it. It's not that tough to ignore the FD's and fly pitch and power until reaching an energy state where that you're hand flying matches the commands of the FD. The lazy man's raw data.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Far, Far Away
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Commander went through and completed CCQ (cross crew qualification) program training from the A330/A340 to the A380 in December 2014, and he underwent Operator required recurrent training and checking thereafter, and most recently, in June 2017.
The Co-pilot held B737-300 and B737-900 type rating as first officer before joining the Operator. After joining Emirates, the Co-pilot completed all required Operator training, and he underwent the Operator required initial training and checking for the A380 in December 2016. His last recurrent training and checking was undergone in April 2017.
Based on the training records, both flight crew had attended the required training, which included glideslope interception from above, as per the Operations Manual-Part D (OMD).
The Co-pilot held B737-300 and B737-900 type rating as first officer before joining the Operator. After joining Emirates, the Co-pilot completed all required Operator training, and he underwent the Operator required initial training and checking for the A380 in December 2016. His last recurrent training and checking was undergone in April 2017.
Based on the training records, both flight crew had attended the required training, which included glideslope interception from above, as per the Operations Manual-Part D (OMD).
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 2,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tttoon
Correct. . However , I believe the pertinent word is " regularly" . Congratulations on flying with an enlightened operator that permits you to indulge and hone your skills . However , not all operators can permit that luxury when most flights are in the longer haul category with a pax load of 300 plus , you are part of a heavy crew and there is a battle for sectors to maintain landing currency. Those folks at the back want a smooth ride which the automation delivers .
With all due respect , I don't think all pilots can guarantee to keep the needles centred perfectly on every departure/arrival (mostly RNAV these days) using raw data alone . With FD it is another matter and I believe most operators do encourage hand flying whenever practical . But RAW data on the line in a heavy jet ? I don't think so .
The simulator is the place to do LOTS of this raw data stuff . If you are not up to standard , then that is a fail . Having retired , I am not sure if this is common practice in training departments these days . It was moving in that direction when I left my last outfit .
Correct. . However , I believe the pertinent word is " regularly" . Congratulations on flying with an enlightened operator that permits you to indulge and hone your skills . However , not all operators can permit that luxury when most flights are in the longer haul category with a pax load of 300 plus , you are part of a heavy crew and there is a battle for sectors to maintain landing currency. Those folks at the back want a smooth ride which the automation delivers .
With all due respect , I don't think all pilots can guarantee to keep the needles centred perfectly on every departure/arrival (mostly RNAV these days) using raw data alone . With FD it is another matter and I believe most operators do encourage hand flying whenever practical . But RAW data on the line in a heavy jet ? I don't think so .
The simulator is the place to do LOTS of this raw data stuff . If you are not up to standard , then that is a fail . Having retired , I am not sure if this is common practice in training departments these days . It was moving in that direction when I left my last outfit .
With reference to keeping the needles centred on a SID, that’s difficult in a Boeing or Airbus, because most SIDs don’t have needles anymore! My last plane had a CDI that could be used in LNAV, and I’d enjoy hand-flying the SIDs in that case. I really wish Boeing and Airbus would put a CDI on the screen.
Granted, I don’t fly long haul, but particularly now, when there’s less flying, I can ill afford to squander the chance to maintain my skills by allowing the AP to fly.