Pilot couldn't land without autopliot?
 

"Horrifying new footage of the jet disaster that killed 41 in Moscow has emerged amid claims pilots made basic errors during the emergency because they were incapable of landing without the assistance of autopilot . . . The footage emerged as an expert claimed that the experienced captain Denis Evdokimov - hospitalised as a result of the crash - had never previously manually flown the Sukhoi Superjet 100 in so-called 'direct mode' before the crash."

Captain Denis Evdokimov had reportedly never landed jet without autopilot on

Quality of the report?

FBW aircraft always land with automatics on since they cannot really be turned off. But I think you mean AUTOLAND? In that case I doubt it is true since you can as far as I know only land with auto land at CAT 11 111 airfields with all the protections for Low Vis Ops in operation. Someone please tell me I am wrong!

Speaking of hand Flying V automation there is a thread under QF72 crash about the lack of handling skills
I added this just now

It looks like the triple AOA inputs had one false input which the other two did not vote out, so the plane reacted. Not much the pilot could do since it was all over in a very short time. But for readers of ET and Lionair who are banking on triple or double AOA inputs solving the MCAS event, it looks like at the end of the day, no amount of automation is going to ensure a safe flight in every situation. Things can happen that nobody had anticipated or just plain go wrong. As in this case.
Here things called pilots are used. Now, if you don't train those pilots to hand- fly in RAW DATA and MANUAL CONTROL, as seems increasingly to be the case, we enter a dystopian world where if the computers cannot cope in every possible situation - clearly an impossibility, then the outcome is not good to contemplate. I believe that following ET and Lionair there is going to be a rip roaring battle between the automators and the hand flyers. It is much cheaper and easier to stuff in some more software and avoid 100 hours plus EXTRA initial training (although this cost is usually borne by the trainee) and longer Type Ratiing Courses probably involving 15 x 4 hours sessions versus the current 9 x 4 hours sessions. Then perhaps 5 full days of recurrent training per annum versus the current 3 - in some airlines 4. A day in the sim. spent doing nothing else but manual interventions and hand flying would be a good start. But then if the airline has a policy of almost banning manual flight above 400 feet as is often the case on the line, that gets us nowhere.
Oh dear here we go............Took off from Tokyo for Moscow and autopilots would not engage. At all. Flew to Moscow no problem whatsoever. But that was when Pontius was a pilot and of course nobody needs those skills these days, do they!

Happy Flying
Y

OMG. What a stupid article. Someone ought to shut down the Daily Mail. They've conflated the issue of Autopilot and manual flying with "Direct Law". DM - Simply the worst kind of trash journalism that exists.

Nothing stopping you from doing an autoland in CAT 1 conditions or better as long as the runway is autoland capable.

And certainly doesn't warrant a thread of its own on here. Oh dear.

In Germany we have BILD
I'm afraid the UK has five of them.....

Except that there would be no protected area so that you would be unable to guarantee the integrity of the ILS signal. Not a risk that I would take.

I think that an unwritten rule should be that any thread that quotes the "Daily Mail" should require the thread topic to include such or at the minimum have a devil icon placed next to it