Auto pilot use
 

Do any airlines/regulatory authorities have rules mandating auto pilot use and limiting hand flying. The question has arisen out of an event of the PF hand flying and not having time to monitor systems, which had a failure, really two failures, as the system failed as well as the warning that the system had failed. PNF was not sharp. Teh thought is that the auto pilot very rarely fails, the second autopilot fails even more rarely, and maintaining and developing hand flying skills should be done in the sim and not with 100 - 400+ pax down the back.

From my experience, talking about the B737 and upwards and similar types, the teaching has always been that if a problem occurs then select the auto-pilot 'in' so that you can sit back and properly assess the problem(s) and make the correct decisions.
Very few people can do two things at once so the idea that if things go wrong you should hand fly is not, in my opinion, a good one, unless the nature of the failure prevents the use of autopilots.
Possible exceptions would be an engine failure at or just after V1, then I would expect the PF to hand fly until the clean up was complete but even then selecting an auto-pilot 'in' at a safe height, (say 500'), would not necessarily be a bad move.

In todays two crew environment with highly sophisticated automation on the flight deck I personally believe it would be foolhardy not to use all the systems available to your advantage.

I agree almost entirely with BlueEagle.

When the A/P is engaged, the PF monitors the autosystems, and the PNF gets on with his other tasks - getting the weather, updating the plog, talking to company or handling agents at destination, checking cabin crew are happy, talking to the SLF, etc. etc.

When PF hand flies, PNF has to have almost all his attention on monitoring the PF, and has to be listening to ATC. Other jobs threfore do not get done, possibly being postponed until they are urgent, and PNF is then working his socks off getting everything done, and is under stress. This is not a good idea. Stressed pilots make mistakes.

In a busy, complex TMA such as London, Paris, and many others around the world, hand flying is a luxury that we cannot afford.

Elsewhere, such as a simple procedure into a quieter airfield, there is nothing to stop the PF briefing the PNF on his intentions, asking if he minds the later stages being hand flown, and keeping his handflying skills brushed up.

In that last paragraph there are two very important points. One is to maintain CRM - ask the other guy if he minds and ask him in a manner that allows him to say no. The other is that it is important to keep your handflying skills maintained. Sod's Law dictates that if you let them get rusty, you will get an A/P fault that you can't handle. Part of being professional is maintaining ALL our skills.

Lastly, if a F/O as PNF is getting behind the game, he needs to be encouraged to speak up and ask for the A/P to be re-engaged. So the PF skipper needs also to maintain a monitoring watch on his F/O. This is more difficult when handflying, and needs more effort. Such effort is a necessary part of command.

Capn S,

Disagree almost entirely with your ideas. However my comments come from flying 3/4 engine heavy jets, with a Flight Engineer.

Have never ever asked a First Officer if he minded if I hand flew the aeroplane, just disconnected the a/p and got on with the job.

Likewise, have never had a First Officer ask me if I minded if he disconnected the a/p and decided to hand fly, and would not expect him to do so.

In addition, have had First Officers hand fly the aeroplane in the London TMA (as well as other very busy locations), and have had absolutely no problems whatsoever. This included line training new First officers on the equipment.
Having said this, most of these folks decided to leave the a/p engaged, on most occasions.

Low visibility approaches are, of course, a horse of a different color.

Old-fashioned ideas?
Others may think so, but they served me well for over thirty years.

411A, it neither surprises nor dismays me that you disagree with me - merely confirms my conviction that I have it right. :rolleyes:

And just for the record, Captain Stable, after eight hours in cruise on autopilot, I deliberately hand fly the machine from 10,000 feet agl all the way unto the pavement...just for the challenge! Doesn't matter whether it's into ORD or into DXB. And when it's my copilot's leg, he/she may do likewise. :eek:

DXB perhaps but handfly into ORD?

Last time I was there ORD was a very busy place and the workload on the PNF was high. It increases that workload considerably if the PF insists on handflying thus leaving all the MCP changes to the PNF just to add to his list of jobs, configuration changes, frequency changes, RT, monitoring the PF and lookout in a busy TMA etc. etc.

Do you carry a third crewmember GlueBall?

Hmmm, suspect a few here would not be able to past muster in a few companies....can't hand fly and keep the ship running normally?...out the door with a few folks.

Once noticed a fellow who tried to keep the a/p engaged all the time in the sim as well...failed and, color him gone.
Pronto.

411A
 

It is not a case of what one can or cannot do it is simply a case of whatever is safest! and you with your age and experience should know better!;) But you always did enjoy a good wind-up!

From the responses it appears that some folks would be at the edge of an emergency without at least one working autopilot...going into ORD, LHR, CDG.... :{

Auto pillock
 

When are people going to stop being macho about hand flying.

Most of you with a reasonable amount of flying/airline experience should be able to recognise when your workload is increasing.

When this starts to happen ask yourself if it wise to continue with this ritual because your company says you can, or if assigning mundane tasks to the autopilot so you can pull your weight on the flight deck and helping your colleague is a better idea.

I personally love disconnecting the automatics and polling around the sky as "raw" as possible. I feel enormous satisfaction in accurate raw data manual flying.

But,

There is a time and a place to do this which is not easy to define through sops. Beacause sops are usually constructed in a nice air conditioned office on the ground and normally written as a policy they can only cover so many situations. The rest is airmanship.

My instinct has been used on many occasions when deciding on when to engage and disengage automatics.

The auto pilot was designed to help us. It is one of many tools of our trade and that is how it should be treated.

Blue Eagle,

Ah, but sometimes it is whether the act of hand flying is relevant.

Case in point.
South asian airline with Lockheed TriStar equipment, and a newly joining Captain from the middle east...from an airline who used the a/p for autolands as normal ops.

OK, no problem....until this chap had to fly a non-precision approach...dark and dirty night, auto-throttle inop.
Co-pilot reported to flight ops that he ....'did not want to fly with this guy ever as three stall warnings on final were quite enough...thanks.'

IF the practice is not exercised...the ability goes away...very rapidly.:ooh:

During my Type Rating course on the 737 I remember to have seen a few training videos. ( think produced by United and American). One was dealing with the crash of the Birgen Air 757 a few years back. Apparently one airline in the States gave the same scenario 50 sets of crew in their simulator. None of them crashed. The training captain on that video mentioned, that the lack of hand-flying skills contributed to this accident because it seemed that in Europe a slightly different approach to commercial flying is practised than in the States: AP most of the time, especially in emergencies. Which of course could be a safe option, but could you put also outside the loop. The particular training captain encouraged his crew to hand fly the bird below 10000ft, if weather permits.

A collegue of mine was on a jumpseat of a Fed-Ex (i believe) DC-10 into New York a few moons back. He told me: all handflown. No AP ;) And silky smooth.
:ok:

I'm gonna jump in here and agree with BurgerThing and 411A. It seems many carriers in this region routinely ONLY hand fly the aircraft below 1000 AGL. Now, on a 14 hour trans-pac flight, how much time is actually spent hand flying the jet? I have to agree with 411A's statement in particular-it really does seem a case of use it or lose it...IMHO!
It's not a case of being macho, its a case of keeping skills sharp! :cool:

I refer the honourable readers to the reply I made a few days ago.

I stated that it was incumbent upon a professional pilot to keep all his skills up to date. Handflying is an important skill, and I have never heard anyone say "Don't worry - always let the automatics do it". Anyone who did would be an idiot, IMHO. Conversely, anyone who only hand flies is a fool, and I have seen quite a few pilots who could not or would not keep their skills on the automatics (FMCS settings etc.) up to date, and had no idea how to make their life easier when the workload was high.

However, as far as practising handflying, there is a time and a place to do this. Going into a busy TMA is, quite simply, not it. My personal opinion is that anyone who does so is eroding the borders of safety. Anyone who does so without consulting his colleague on the flight deck is rude and inconsiderate, risks further stress upon the other member of the flight deck crew, risks good working relationships and therefore further erodes safety.

My vote goes with 411.Too much reliance on automation these days.You never know when you're going to have to make a manual approach or a no-gyro or something.If you're flying raw data and the other guy selects LNAV or APP and looks all quizzical when nothing happens,then you know for sure that over-reliance on automation is not a good thing.
"Mind if I hand-fly it?" Never heard of that one.Thats what pilots do.Bit like asking "Mind if I do my job?"

Let us all be quite clear here. No one is advocating no hand flying, no one says that one day you won't need it if the automatics fail, (despite massive system redundancy on most modern aircraft), no one says that practise isn't necessary, in fact whether or not one should maintain hand flying practise is a question that, despite not having been raised, is getting plenty of answers here!

The question is whether or not the PF should dump the automatics in a busy TMA to hand fly and thus load up his PNF and thereby reduce safety margins and that is all.

Whether or not one asks/discusses with/tells the PNF that one is about to disconnect the automatics depends on the level of CRM in that company and just how sloppy or otherwise their flight deck procedures are.

No, Rananim, it is not equivalent to asking "Mind if I do my job?".

It is equivalent to "Mind if I suddenly unnecessarily increase your workload just as you were getting busy?"

Totally agree with captain stable! Practising hand flying is done at times of low workload and good weather conditions. Also, how hard can it be to hand fly a modern passenger transport... Sounds like some are afraid to suddenly suffer some sort of instant amnesia the moment they engage the AP? WIthout automation there wouldn't be enough room in the skies for the present traffick density, and overreliance on automation is usually some poor sod that didn't take the time to read the manual - and practice doing his job. Wasn't too long ago some real hands-on fellas collided mid-air because they didn't trust the automation.

Captain Stable and Crossunder - while I mostly agree with you, if we only practice hand flying in good weather we are missing out on some of the important bits of practice. On my previous aircraft (small base) I was known as someone who liked hand flying (only if it was safe to do so and the Captain wasn't against the idea). Because of this and my acceptance of hand flying from the other seat, some Captains felt happy to hand fly with me and if I flew a manual approach would say 'about time I had a go' or similar on the next one. All well and good, except that some of the hand flying was not quite up to scratch at times and after a couple of slightly dodgy approaches (visual at night, different Captains) I decided that it was better to practice in a variety of conditions. Obviously I would not fly a Cat2 approach to minimums in manual, but we do need to practice in cloud as it is different and can sometimes be quite disorientating even with experienced crews. It is too easy to sneak a peek in good weather and then we are cheating ourselves - and I have seen it happen so many times.

My own flying improved drastically (ie capacity increase and smoother) after practising no flight director approaches. In fact, when I first started and used the automatics most of the time, I was dissappointed at my lack of capacity when I took them out. Now I practice a lot more and I am a better pilot for it.

Busy TMA's are another place to practice - if we do not have the capacity (from either seat) to do it then we are lacking essential skills.

One Captain I flew with, complained after 2 manual departures with me flying and asked me to put in the autopilot - I did to preserve CRM, but his reasoning was that he had 'had enough for today' total hands on time was about 12 minutes (for the day) and I must admit that scared me.

Emergencies - different matter. We should do whatever we need to maintain capacity and assure a safe outcome. The autopilot is not always your best friend in that situation though as I discovered in the sim. Most of the time - I would put it in, but be prepared to take it out and hand fly if it would be beneficial, and practice in a variety of conditions makes your capacity much bigger.

Crossunder - Wasn't so long ago that a large aircraft hit a hill because the pilots were heads in dealing with the automatics instead of getting on with flying the aeroplane. Middle road is what we need, not extremes like Mr 411A.

My vote goes to 411A and Burger.
Capt. Stable... why would the PNF have to monitor the PF any more when he is hand flying than when he is not? With EFIS you don't even have to scan as we did in the days of round dials. I am prepared to hand fly anywhere any time. Whether I chose to in any given circumstance is another matter. IMHO automation has increased the workload in many cases. This discussion seems to be split on continental lines.

Does it really have to be spelled out for you that much? I guess it does. :rolleyes:

When the automatics are engaged, they fly the aircraft. PF monitors the automatics. When PF is flying, he needs to be monitored. The only person on a 2-crew flight deck to do that is the PNF.

It appears to me that, across the pond in the former colonies, the culture is much more one in which the Captain is God, and woe betide any FO who gets uppity and wants to monitor what the skipper is doing.

In Europe, we have realised that, in order to ensure flight safety, a rather more modern concept of crew interaction is needed - i.e., one which takes into account the physiology and psychology of human interaction. To this end, it is understood that the flight crew are a team. It is not a regimental officer's mess, where decisions get handed down from on high, and in which you don't question your orders.

Pilots make mistakes, whichever side they're sitting on. Part of the other guy's job is to trap those mistakes. To this end, crew interaction is needed. This entails CRM. Good CRM implies that you don't bog the other guy down with needless extra work just when he's at his busiest just because you fancy playing.

Ralph, if you really think that automation has increased the workload, then you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about.

Maybe we should also instruct the PNF to cut an engine at V1 every now and again, so we don't lose those skills as well.;)

My, my, you do get wound up over there don't you. Well I have my asbesyos suit on so fire away. You really should lighten up a little. This is a serious issue and requires serious debate.

The PNF should monitor the PF at all times and vis versa. Good CRM requires it. I refer you to the Eastern accident where the good old automation flew them into the Everglades.

I stand by my contention that automation increases workload in many cases. There is a vast body of scientfic literature out there to support this view. You might want to read the accident reports on the British Midlands 737 incident and AA Cali to see just how far down the garden path automation can lead you.

Automation is just another club in your bag; to be used when appropriate and discarded when not.

The Captain on the Brit Midland 737 manually flew the aircraft after the engine failure (see official report)

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...cst?n=5236&l=4

and the Eastern accident occurred because nobody looked after the shop, during troubleshooting. (with four people on the flightdeck!)

Ah yes, Cali and AA, an interesting study of how not to operate, and expect to survive.

Using automation, the crew decides to alter the approach sequence at the last minute, inserts a waypoint which they think is correct (but the database proves 'em wrong), ignores very basic raw data information, and descends into a hill, with go-around thrust selected/speed brakes extended.

Absolutely no planning or forethought whatsoever.

Autopilot use is fine, and on more modern types is highly recommended for ease of operation, but you gotta remember...garbage in, garbage out with the FMS/FMC.

Far too many 'new generation' guys expect the machine to never fail/always be correct.

Sadly, is does fail...and you have to pay attention.

AA Cali - A striking example of how important it is to keep all your skills brushed up - especially those to do with the complexities (on occasions) of the automatics. Unless you understand how to use them, and use them properly, they will rise up and bite you.

They are tools, to be used to an end. If they don't perform the task required, dump them. If they lighten the load at a time when there is much to do and a short time in which to do it, then use them. Don't scorn them because of some outdated idea that only wusses fly on A/P, and "in the old days we used to hand-fly 200 tons of aircraft through hurricanes with total blackout on the ground and land on a 60 ft runway in less than zero/zero visibility - THAT was flying, son!"

I'm not quite sure why Eastern came up - that was nothing to do with hand-flying.

In the case of the BM 737, the first thing the skipper did was to disconnect the autopilot. He therefore occupied himself unnecessarily with handflying instead of analysing the problem and solving it. He was far less able, therefore, to carry out a full scan of the engine instruments. Who knows - he might actually have spotted the vibration indicator going off the clock...

Have to side with Blue Eagle and Capt. Stable on this one. Having watched from the jumpseat as a captain handflew the aircraft from cruise alttitude to landing, going into LHR, I was struck by two things. Firstly the accuracy of heading, speed and altitude was way below autopilot standards, and secondly the PNF was out of the loop for large parts of the approach, as his arms flew around the cockpit setting up headings,v/s, new radio frequencies etc.
This will become an ever increasing problem in the future as the pilots who were brought up with no flight directors, and Mickey Mouse autopilots retire,coupled with more and better automatics, which further errode flying skills.
The problem is exacerbated when the airline only flies wide-body long haul aircraft. The copilot only gets one leg in three, if he is lucky, and problems usually occur in the last two hundred feet, when it comes to planting the thing on the ground.

Manual flying without F/D in ALL types of airspace(if we can do it in ORD and DFW,you can do it in LHR for sure) should be practised periodically.Workload may well increase for the PNF but it keeps the mind sharp and is not a bad thing.
There's a new breed of pilot who is actually afraid to take out the automatics and practise these essential skills.The same thing goes for non-precision approaches.Once every 6 months in the sim aint enough.And then when the ILS isnt working,you're left out to dry.Look at the KAL crash at Guam.Next time dont take the vectors the long way round for the ILS,go for the straight-in and shoot an NDB or VOR approach.One more for the memory bank and will keep you in good stead.Its called experience.
Having said that,automation is a great tool and should be used 95% of the time in busy airspace.

I totally agree with Rananim that flying skills have to be practised to maintain a level of competency, but I still maintain that ultra busy TMA's like LHR and ORD are the wrong venues for practise. Why pile on the workload when you should be keeping a close eye on conflicting traffic and the safe profile of the aircraft? It goes double for busy American fields like ORD, LAX,JFK and SFO, where runway changes seem to happen at the last minute, and controllers often make no allowance for track miles to run to touchdown when giving clearances, putting the onus on the pilot to comply or go around .

Look at the autopilot issue from a slightly different perspective. What were the expectations of the manufacturer and what now is allowed by the certification authority with respect to autopilot use?
Auto pilot use is mandated for most Cat 2 / 3 operations; for these, a specific design of autopilot is used, these systems do not or must not fail (at least not very often). Some RNP operations require autopilot use to achieve the required navigation accuracy. For all other operations most civil aviation authorities accept that pilots can achieve an acceptable flying standard i.e. safe. It is accept that autopilots will reduce workload, fatigue, etc. But when to use the autos is open to pilot judgement (a skill) and operator policy. The assumption is that either with of without autos the overall operation remains safe.
The semantics or choice of words in previous posts is of concern. When people talk about monitoring an autopilot they should mean monitor the input / output of the system, thus monitor the flight path of the aircraft. Did everyone mean this? It is an old adage that the NFP should monitor the FD during manual flight (older designs of FDs failed often), but the important issue was to monitor what the aircraft is doing – the flight path – how many aircraft hit the hillside with the crosshairs centred? This latter point is of direct relevance to NFPs of HUD drivers. An autopilot does not have a bad day, HUDs should not, but pilots often do. How does the NFP check how the pilot flying the HUD is performing? - Monitor the raw data / aircraft flight path.
Autopilots are designed with differing aims and with varying standards of reliability. Some fail op autos (Cat3b) may only be fail passive in the cruise, thus a different standard of monitoring (workload) will apply. Although the new big jets may have autopilots designed to handle emergency flight situations (engine out), many lesser systems were not. In accident reports it is often these systems that have caught out the crew. What better way of getting the feel of the aircraft by hand flying after an engine failure; pitch trim feel is the feed back for airspeed, similarly, (secondary) so are the roll and yaw forces a cue to what the aircraft is doing. Monitoring is required during a V2 climb, but the urgent actions take place at a predetermined safe point; engine shut down should only require one confirmatory check from PF that the PNF has the correct engine. The subsequent actions are just that, subsequent to the shut down and in a time / priority scale conducive to monitoring safe flight. N.B. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, Review and monitor (Agitae), in that order. NFP monitors the aviation, navigation, and participates in comms (in other actions take place inter-crew and external).
If a PF or operator believes that a NFP has to spend most of his time monitoring the PF or making MCP selections then there could be a misunderstanding of assumptions made during design and certification of that aircraft. This disparity may imply that the licensing standard of the crew is insufficient for that type of operation, that the individual is ‘just not sharp’, that there is a lack of trust between crewmembers (CRM / human factors), or that the design of SOPs do not match those intended by the manufacturer.
One of the communication gaps in our industry is between what one part of an authority has certificated (manufacture’s design) and what the other part of the authority approves for operation. I agree with the professionals in our industry that the lack of skill (in whatever form) is a threat to the very good safety record that we enjoy; but if we are unhappy about a particular skill then raise the issue within your operation, or with your authority. Unless these concerns are aired formally then any differences in the assumptions made during design and about operating aircraft will go unchallenged, and if so, then there could be a real risk to safety.

Now where were we......
400 hour pilot, building hours, flying rubber dog sh1t out of nowhereville in a twin piston cessna.

Piston, turbo, need to be babied, full manual, six levers (rigged not to sit flush at the same settings) and two cowl flap levers (in guaranteed to induce dis-orientation place).

Autopilot last serviced in 1977, unusual personality, has mind of its own...best used only in VMC, so you can catch it when it disconnects at an inappropriate moment...

Co-pilot....absent again...

Paper charts, dim lights, no GPS, only one operational VOR, no DME, AI sits 2 deg off level when wings level, need to remember that in IMC to avoid constant course corrections

IMC, no radar (of any sort), unintelligable ATC, rain (lots of it) popping circuit breakers, try to sort the problem from memory while keeping the A/C right way up, left bus bar disconnects again dammit !!!, I wish those engineers would fix the 30 year old electrics properly, fuel and engine guages not working now...start doing complex fuel calculations in head...

Start humming... three wheels on my wagon......:\


Sorry, just a brief foray in to the world of the low hours time building pilot, now that i am back in big boy reality land, please tell me that one about 21st century automated multi crewed jets being dangerous to hand fly ??

So then Robmac A totally unairworthy aircraft in IMC, all the faults well known to you and yet you continued, (hours building is NO excuse), very impressive, I think not!

The possible 'danger' of hand flying in today's more complicated machinery in very busy controlled airspace is that you are deliberately eroding the safety margins by not taking full advantage of all the assistance offered to you, a bit like wearing a life jacket but not bothering to inflate it.

One can imagine the manufactures response after an accident; "Had the pilot(s) taken advantage of all the flying aids offered within the aircraft this accident need not have happened", one can then imagine the insurers response!

Hopefully your post was 'tongue in cheek'?

Well spotted Blue Eagle.....

However, I guess you have never had the misfortune to hire some of the cr#p which is out there.....and believe me it is.

Of course it is always "airworthy" upon departure, and I kid you not, my little picture painted there is actually a conglomerate of problems that I have had to deal with on "airworthy" aircraft rented to me by highly recommended organisations.

I actually ended up giving up and buying my own aircraft after trying lots of different places and getting tired of these money grabbing, maintenance averse fuc8wits trying to kill me.

Of course if I was to learn at the hands of a high tech, fast track, money no object airline programme, and then find myself in the right seat of a money no object aircraft with everything but the flying done by some other flunkey, I wouldn't have had to put up with it would I.

My point is that there are an awful lot of spoiled people out there..

Anyway Eagle, I had you down for a pompous a55, but your last line saved you ;)

Sh1t!!! I just noticed where you are from, and had to comment further. The aircraft I purchased was a VH with a brand new annual and "400 hour" Hawker re-mans. I had to do US30K work on it before it was safe to put on the N register.

Not only was much of the maintenance unsafe, some of it was actually highly illegal......and what did the CASA cartel have to say about it, not too much, just some whingeing pom who doesn't know the score, she'll be right mate...

Most frightening thing of all, it used to be an RPT aircraft !!!

So my friend from the land of OZ, I am sure with your experience and standing in the OZ aviation community, theres a lot of safety issues to get cracking with at home.:*

"Unsafe? Highly Illegal?" That is dependent upon whose standards you measure it by. Some standard practices in some countries are illegal in others. And judging an entire industry on one example is just a little bit harsh, don't you think?

Dale,

Measured by CASA standards !!, how about drilling a hole in the casing of the prop governor and putting an non-designed screw in order to keep the prop from feathering inadvertently due to low oil pressures inside the casing.....just one example, I have five more on the same aircraft...and a few more on others I have flown.

The drilled hole by the way, rendered the casing completely unfit for re-manufacture.

robmac,

not only have you wandered way off topic, but you really are sounding like a self-appointed hero.:yuk:

Indeed very good points were posted in this topic.

I am writing an article about Loss of Flight Proficiency in Automated Cockpits to be presented in a national seminar of aeronautical sciences colleges in my country and this topic was very useful with the points cited.

Maybe you can give me some help in some points.

- How are autopilots listed on today's commercial airplanes MELs (Minimum Equipment List)? For example, if a 737 has all autopilots INOP, can it be dispatched? How about the A320?

- What is your company SOP regarding autopilot use? Is its use mandatory through all flight phases or is it based on pilot's discretion?

That would be it for now. Thanks a lot.

Look again at Rananim's post at the bottom of the previous page.

The second paragraph is, I feel, the most important point made this discussion.

SOP's, peer pressure and, especially, the tribal culture of particular types, fleets, bases or companies themselves conspire to create this situation. It was always strange to me when effo's were pleased and a little awed when it was hinted a little hand flying perfectly suited the next approach. If anything the thought of manually flying a SID seemed even more daunting. Most of all, no autothrottle seemed to be a relatively common line occurence that caused eyes to roll to the heavens.

Significantly Ops manuals always seem to have a catch all paragraph permitting manual flying as when, Etc. However there can be a culture where this is ignored for the majority of the time. We then find folks uncharacteristically and at, perhaps inopportune, times throwing away both A/P and FD because, 'they're due in the sim soon.' :uhoh: :uhoh: :uhoh:

Rob

Towers,

Very good points, well said.

Those companies who demand constant autopilot use are, in my opinion, a threat to aviation safety, and to the passengers which they carry.

Manual flying skills absolutely need to be properly maintained, and this positively includes busy TMA's.
IF pilots cannot handle manual flying without having an anxiety attack, they need to be brought up to speed, quick.
Either that or reassigned to a ground job.

Recall one post on the Tech Forum awhile back about a First Officer, who found it a ...'nightmare' to hand fly the aircraft after an autopilot failure.
Ask yourself, is this the guy you want at the pointy end flying you...or your family?