TBH unless some of the recurrent content goes or is reduced in frequency you're going to need more expensive sim time to allow for a meaningful amount of handling practise ( such scannexs, etc) every 6 months...
What are the chances of that?

To answer your last question "not a lot."
To address the former comment: in the enlightened airlines that expensive sim time is not needed because they do it on the line every day.

You're all probably bored of me saying this, but an easy system to encourage manual flying would be where we have to perform and record a certain number of manually flown, raw data manual thrust approaches every six months, as part of normal line flying.

We used to have to do this for Autolands, and we kept a personal record of them which was checked at every SIM.

A similar thing should be brought in for manually flown raw data approaches. Obviously they would only be expected to be performed in good weather, but it might help drag us out of our collective "laziness" (and I hold my hand up here too.)

Not to start an A vs B debate, but why do you say that? I've been up front in the NG, and I don't see anything too cutting edge.

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.
Now ATC requirements often prevent short cuts, and local noise enforcers do not allow you onto the GP below platform height, rarely not less than 2000'. No matter, it is a manual CDA exercise and needs constant adjustment to achieve it. There are still places where you can appear overhead at 5000' and make a CDA to either runway direction. Great fun, until the damp blanket brigade decreed that finals must be established not less than 4nm or OM, and a wpt must be inserted in the magic box to ensure compliance. OMG.
If all that was done via automatics, and only the final 4nm was manual flight on a good day, where's the skill developing benefit? It needs to be the whole profile from 20nm out to a CDA. That should be basic line flying.
It's all an attitude thing. Its defence is always safety and economics. It avoids unstable approaches and reduces GA's. So there you have it. But let's publish the performances of those airlines who encourage manual flight and those who don't and see if there is any truth in that perception.

It's less about what you see and more about what's behind what you're seeing CA. Higher power consumption and numerous discrete devices using point to point architecture were the norm for 1980's designs (A320 and subsequent variants) compared to the 1990's designed boxes of the NG, which incorporate more integrated digital electronics, using the latest chip technologies, programming, and streamlined architecture.

While the A320 is a more evolutionarily advanced aircraft, mostly due to the ingenious FBW system, the 737NG's electronics are a generation ahead. It's a bit ironic, yes?

They are looking for the best of the best.

Once found, the 'smart' ones in risk/cost/benefit work together in handing down the rules, with the (I would hope) begrudging agreement of those in training/ops. That's the internal source of disconnect and an area of needed reform. The question remains, how can we foster this change?

"Forbidden" - my bold, unless a day comes when we are in dire need of manual flying skills, then by all means, save the day, Roger. But if you bugger it up, and manage live to tell about it, you might find yourself on the wrong side of an inquiry.

You are not alone RAT 5.

I would not have placed that remark on pprune just for nonsense sake. Those words came from a highly experienced and respected (now retired) Boeing 787 simulator instructor with whom I have corresponded for over 15 years on technical matters, in a personal email to me and while he was undergoing his initial 787 type rating at Boeing prior to his conducting type rating training on type. Take it or leave it...

It is not all that surprising to me, STB.

0 to ATPL being the norm outside of the US and becoming more common. Airbus was highly astute in recognizing the early majority of their customers seeking airline fleet modernity would be employing those who do not come from a pool of clasically trained pilots and of which English may not be their native language. Their ingenious FBW system was to mitigate much of the risk in that endeavour and for the most part has done a fairly good job, considering.

Not a bad idea, though it sounds a bit like the good old military days of "chasing the line"...and the "pencil whipping" that just might have gone on...:oh:

Playing Devil's advocate for a moment what would be an acceptable level of, say, hand flown approaches (define? e.g. autopilot out below 3k??)) per six months? I know at times some F/O's on Longhaul Fleets struggle to get a landing/approach of any sort a month, due to the heavy crewing they are rostered to do.

@ pax b, l would agree with most of #34, except the 'vital skills in daily use' for Colgan, Asiana, AF do not relate directly to 'pure' flying skills. The dominant skill shortfall was in awareness, probably with contributions from training; stall vs unwarranted tail-stall training, knowledge of a system gotcha, reversion to a recently trained procedure.

A theme of the automation/flying debate is confidence in flying ability. Crews need to acquire and maintain confidence for a wide range of operational scenarios, but it important not to transpose passenger comfort or other operational niceties with the requirement for a safe outcome.

e.g. Whilst it is necessary for crew to practice landings in limiting crosswinds (noting the limits of simulation), it is equally important to direct this experience away from overconfidence. A critical skill is knowing when not to attempt a landing in a limiting crosswind, and what affects the 'limit'.

An alternative incident/accident analysis is required, but I would not turn to IFALPA etc for this. They or similar groups already consider the outcome and recommendations in reports more often with little questioning, resulting in general categorisations, boxes for action.
It would be more beneficial and provide a quicker response, for all operators, all individuals, to consider the reported situation seeking what can be learnt; what they can learn.
It is likely that there will be an wide range of views, probably identifying the many contributors in an accident situation. The objective is not to determine cause, blame etc, but to ask what can be learnt irrespective of the outcome. What applies to 'me', my operation, etc bearing in mind that the outcome might already be known.

The fact that this is considered "obvious" is somehow terrifying, as if the idea that the pilot could hand fly at the limits was in some way dangerous and something to be avoided.

If a pilot cannot routinely fly by hand at the aircraft limits safely, then they are not really a safe pilot.

Automatics never fail on the CAVOK days....

PEI ( been to lovely little Charlotte town -a good few years ago.

I would not argue with your clearer classification of the failings in the incidents I referred to . You seem to generally agree with my point that in order for something to happen there needs to be pressure on the managements to take active steps to mitigate what has become a significant cause of incidents even if overall the number of serious incidents have decreased.

The beanies can for a time wave the stats at you and say -our way is safer BUT and it is a big BUt it has become pretty clear that when things get difficult or unusual or unfamiliar 'their way is not safer it is in fact dangerous.
and sooner or later the lawyers are going to make compensation cases (which only refer to one incident at a time ) and say airline xx didnt train their crews properly for abnormal flight conditions and no amount of arguing about what happens to the other 99.999% of flights being safer is going to help then. So I think airline managers need that situation pushed upon them quite forcefully

@ pax b, yes l agree. However, operators in satisfying the beanies and lawyers, may only meet the minimum regulatory requirements, where often the reasoning behind the regulatory change is flawed, dated, and may not address the important issues.
Furthermore, each operator / individual can implement the training according to their understanding of the problem (cf range of suggestions in this thread), and then who checks that the output achieves the improvement intended.

I do not have an issue with those who wish for more hand flying, that's good for aviation. But individually, operators, and regulators must not fool themselves that this alone will solve the significant problems which can result in LoC.
How does accumulating manually flown approaches contribute to the avoidance of similar situations to those encountered in recent accidents; crews need to improve understanding and identification of weather threats, aircraft systems abnormalities, and 'off' normal operation (limits of SOPs).

Hi Rat.

The comment was not a position on the desirability of such skills (which ought to be self evident, but until some bean counter gets indicted for corporate manslaughter.....).

These days I spend most of my time doing MCC and JOC courses; bridging the gap between licence issue and first type rating. Although I ought to be used to it by now I continue to be dismayed by how few of the students can actually fly. Inability to set an attitude. Inability to trim. Non existent scan, especially of heading and speed. Inability to figure out which hand controls what for various phases of flight. Honestly I have NO IDEA how 70% of these people have passed an IR.

I don't blame the students. As an industry (and with the regulators also guilty by omission of action) we have completely messed up the flying training process.

pb

I believe 0 to ATPL is one of the culprits here (alongside the obvious - over-reliance on automatics).

Enlightened views Cap.

The 'leaders', not the majority, signed off on the programs/systems the 'risk averse' and bottom line aligned were selling. This is the root core of the current disconnect towards safety culture.

What is interesting, in this debate, is that critisicm of lack of real basic flying skills has now migrated down the food chain to the embryonic stages. That is scary and the solution rests firmly on the XAA's and flight school inspectors. Who does the final CPL flight test? Are they locally appointed/approved TRE's or employed XAA examiners? Is there any incentive for flight schools to have high pass rates? Is there an assumption that the CPL student on an airline orientated course will then fall into the talons of the in-house airline training dept. and be beaten into shape.
I wonder, having failed 1 element of my initial IR, if standards are high enough in the early stages. I wonder too at the basic selection process. True, anyone with cash can buy a CPL, but aptitude has to be assessed along the way. I know schools are businesses first & foremost. A difficult conundrum.

From experience I found that the small airlines operating from a few bases, who conducted their training & recurrency at home base, who did not employ self-funded cadets but experienced pilots were more active in encouraging piloting skills to be maintained on the line; certainly in all the various charter companies I flew for. This attitude is also alive and confirmed by friends at some of the EU and Canadian national carriers, even up to B747 size.
What I did find is that the rapidly expanding airlines, who have bases all over the place, have pilots from a rainbow of back-grounds and who do employ a large number of self-funded cadets, have quite the opposite attitude. Very rigid use of automatics and SOP's.
It was felt this was the only way to 'keep a handle' on the safe expansion over the horizon. It might seem that the rapid growth of the cheap ticket market so loved by the ever travelling nouveau pax has been complicit, in some areas, with the dilution of piloting skills.
Now that does need the wisdom of Solomon to solve and reverse.

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?

I'm not sure where logging autolands comes into it (other than it was about the only thing that we did/ do ;) on the line that we have to log for the XAA.

I'm simply not sure you can set a target/monthly/three monthly requirement to log certain types of handling exercises and approaches on the aircraft as was done "back in the day", certainly in an organisation I flew for, where you'd get ***** by the stats officer and boss if you hadn't flown your two simulated engine out SRAs for the month. :rolleyes:

I apologise for teaching to suck eggs etc, but at a rough guess where I work many of the Long Haul P2s might only get a shot at get 2-3 approaches in a average month. Obviously (?) not all of those approaches can be hand flown e.g. because of Ops manual restrictions for approaches in weather close to Cat 1 limits, increasing frequency of RNAV approaches ( BTW another recurrent sim box tick that uses up time but adds nil to hand flying practise) etc.

Given the amount of exposure my colleagues get it's not uncommon, especially in the winter months, to fly with pilots who haven't hand flown an ILS for several months, and it's not been down to laziness.

I actually think they mostly do remarkably well given the lack of opportunity for hand flying........

Wiggy. I understand and sympathise. Finding a 'fits all' solution is never easy. It's like FTLs. One size does not fit all. I heard of problems in one long haul heavy crew operator. The SFO's were rostered as safety/cruise pilots with the newbies. The captain needed recurrency landings, plus autolands, and the newbies need experience. This the SFO's had naff all handling time. Then came their command upgrade process. they were rusty as hell and some failed. Their fault? No.
What troubles many of us is the lack of skills in the short haul market. There, there are no mitigating circumstances other than company culture. There is opportunity enough. The fact that it is not taken, or is to allowed, is the root cause of the problem. One could argue who needs the skill more, the multi-sector short-haul minor-airport ILS/NPA pilot or the few-sector, long-haul, major airport ILS autoland pilot. They are different animals. Both should have the basic skills, but who need them more on a daily basis?

My point was that it was something that the CAA required us to do and record to keep our autoland proficiency up, and my suggestion is that this idea could be applied to manually flown approaches.:ok:

Well it worked OK for autolands, and we've got to do something. My suggestion might just start the ball rolling and get us all thinking towards the mindset of flying manually - especially if it were a requirement of the XAA. This should not cost anything to do either, and whatever we do has to be accepted by the airlines as well as the pilots. So ideally it needs to be easy and cost free.

especially if it were a requirement of the XAA. This should not cost anything to do either, and whatever we do has to be accepted by the airlines as well as the pilots. So ideally it needs to be easy and cost free.

Given that some airlines encourage, actively, the development and maintenance of manual piloting skills, and some don't, the change in attitude of the latter may need a tickle of encouragement from an XAA. However, for that encouragement to be published, the XAA (EASA/FAA to make it equal for all) would need to acknowledge 'there is a problem'. I don't think pilots would object, but the blinkered airlines would howl in protest and 'being interfered with' where they believe there is no problem. They would argue that nothing was broke so no need to fix it. Their safety record would be their defence.
Regarding logging autolands: not only are they logged, but the accuracy & performance of the a/c and airport is assessed. Logging a raw data visual/ILS approach would also need an assessment of its calibre. Who does that? You or your colleague?

Agreed, now I'll post the following as long as some people don't accuse me of being...well, a certain word.

I try to grab manual flying as much as I can. As a result of a previous discussion for a while I have indeed logged manual ILS's/appoaches vs. Coupled (inc. autolands)..there, I've admitted it..:\

FWIW last calendar year, >850 flying hours, Long haul with a handful for "shuttle sectors"...:

Hand flown ILS's 21
Self positioned Visual approaches 2
Coupled ILS/RNAV - 12

So that's a total of 35 approaches in a year for a captain ...for the average P2 on my fleet that's going to be a lower figure due to their heavy crewing requirements.

So about two manually flown ILS's or visual approaches per month. That seems reasonable, and three per six months would appear to be entirely possible?

Hi RAT, I don't want to get bogged down with the autoland thing, but the form I am talking about was a personal record of our autolands, and all we did was record the date when we performed an autoland or a practice autoland; which airport, what the wind was and the general weather conditions. I have just had a look, but I can't find mine right now and can't remember what its CAA form number was - maybe it was only a company form. We did not assess the autoland quality, merely that we ourselves had performed one. This is not to be confused with the 'unsatisfactory autoland performance' form that you might be thinking of?

I am suggesting the same sort of form, but instead of autolands, we would record our own manually flown approaches.

.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

Agree.

How much manual flying is needed?? We all should be able to fly the a/c manually and be able to think about any problem we encounter at the same time. How much manual flying is needed to do this well vary with individuals.

The problems that we may encounter that cause the automatics to fail will be serious enough to require the intellect of both pilots to solve. If the flying pilot has to use all his mental abilities to aviate it leaves the cockpit short of the needed expertise to solve the problem.

In short the ability to aviate manually should be innate and not require all the full attention of the flying pilot. This will only be available to those that keep their scan and skills up to date.

In short the ability to aviate manually should be innate and not require all the full attention of the flying pilot. This will only be available to those that keep their scan and skills up to date.

Spot on. The tick in the box flying exercises often allowed in the sim every 3 years without any accompanying stresses come no-where near achieving the abilities you describe.
Something so simple is to practice is an ILS on the small SBY instruments. When I did my command upgrade it was an exercise in the syllabus. It was deemed that any self-respecting captain should be able to. Many of the new generation have full PFD on SBY electrics, and it would take multiple failures of electrics & screens to achieve the small SBY instruments only, but why not use it as an educating exercise to improve feel/touch & scan. You can do an OPC in quick short time and then use the rest of the 4.00hrs for pure manual flying exercises with a few simple QRH non-normals thrown in to tick those boxes. You keep flying under radar vectors and configure for the ILS while the PNF does the QRH switching under your supervision. It would teach PF AND PNF/PM to multi-task and be accurate. Just needs some imagination in writing the annual syllabus.

Agree. In fact, on all ILS I advise the PF to bring up the ILS up on the standby ADI.

It gives the pilot practice at switching his gaze solely from the PFD ILS display to a few inches across the instrument panel to the standby ADI where the needles may be slightly different and the nose attitude scale is very small.

Depending on the design of the instrument, the needles of the standby ADI can partially hide the horizon bar making it difficult to see the real nose attitude. Having the ILS switched on the standby ADI during every ILS, gives the pilot (left or right seat) efficient scanning practice at using the standby ADI for real if the situation ever demands it.

.....and totally unnecessary crashes due to bad manual handling such as the San Fransisco 777 (can't remember the details) and all the others would be our answer.

This conclusion is typical of hindsight bias; humans tend to focus on the the last action or person involved in the event, thus constructing a cause based on the outcome.
Such thoughts, and being unable to remember, suggests that nothing was learnt from this incident, nothing that would apply to you ('you' in this sense is not personal, but generic; 'you' as individuals, operators, trainers, regulators, and manufacturers); i.e. it wouldn't happen to me.

Learning requires deeper thought about events. It's easy to relate outcome by looking back, instead we should try to look forward from the crew's point of view at the time and consider all that preceded the accident.
One problem is that we depended too much on official reports, which generally focus on a causal route based on 'factual' evidence. This more often hinders wider learning as the possibilities which might help avoid other accidents are not considered because they were not proven in the accident, but they may have influenced the outcome ... we don't know, but it's worth the thought.

Thus for SF 777 we could consider the influence of ATC, the approach procedure, the automation design, operator training and procedural guidance, if the crew knew about the flight system weakness, or were aware of it in this event. The latter could argue for more system implementation training and use of automation - practice in daily operations.
Which of the above could apply to you; this would be a more useful crew room discussion than that assuming an outcome, blame the human, poor manual flying, etc.

After sixteen years of pushing the same buttons on the A320/321, I felt stagnated. So, I added a Comm-Glider rating last summer.

I hand-fly the bus more than most, but getting out and flying by the seat of my pants and working thermals to keep a glider in the air was a CTRL>ALT>DEL for my brain. If you want to improve your overall skills, go fly a glider for a couple of hours. It's done wonders for me.

:ok:

What I meant was; I couldn't remember the airline or the flight number or the date of the crash. However, I do remember that there seemed to be no monitoring of speed or energy - which is a fundamental and shocking piloting error - and which ultimately resulted in the crash.

I for one, am acutely aware that my skills are not as razor sharp as they were when I was handflying turbo props which only had manual thrust. So I think/hope that I do learn from such things - by them helping me stay reasonably pro-active in practising my skills when I can.

I think automation practice might be a red herring. If we all hand-flew more often, we should be better placed to recognise when the automatics were getting it wrong, (or have been wrongly programmed), because the system responses would be inconsistent with correcting the deviation(s) and we would then know to take over.

I like the idea of glider flying, and might look into that. But how much does it cost and when would I have the time? Also, after a week of getting up at 0300, the last thing I want to do is more flying, and I think Mrs Uplinker might object!

I know what you mean. I have enough on with work and keeping home life afloat. I know most here, self included, are inclined to be Total Aviation Person minded and a bit of SEP/gliding to sharpen up the skills sounds great... but pilots doing things out due to a sense of vocation is one of the reasons the industry has gone the way it has.

Do surgeons spend spare time at weekends honing their skills by dissecting small animals? Do bank managers routinely spend evenings sharpening their arithmetical and analytical skills just in case they are presented with some difficult decisions at work?

Sorry to be controversial but if there is an industry problem then it's up to the industry to find the hours, kit, and the funding, we shouldn't be expected to take up a hobby to fix the problem....

Interesting discussion.
Apart from what to train, what options are there?

-Extra training in a FFS simulator. Company pays. Not likely.
-Private flying, motor or glider. Fun, but time consuming and expensive.

KISS, people.
Lockheed Martin took over Microsoft Flight Simulator and developed it further.
Prepare3D, P3D.

Lockheed Martin - Prepar3D

Buy a high quality 737 or 777 from PMDG. Add it to P3D.

https://www.precisionmanuals.com

Add a set of flight controls, and off you go. You can train whatever you want.

Raw data, IFR, VFR, ILS, FMC, it's all there.
Low cost. Available anytime.
AND, the model fly by the same numbers as the real aircraft. Do a take off calculation with your company software. Set the PMDG aircraft up with the same weight. The FMC speeds are correct. Customize the model to match your company aircraft.
You need a certain thrust and pitch to keep 250 kts at 10000 ft in the real aircraft. It wil be the same in your PMDG aircraft.

Too much? Nearly all systems in the PMDG 737/777 have been modelled. Correctly. You can practise system failures, and you will get the same indications as the real aircraft.

It's that good. It's time to stop making fun of flight simulators and see the potential. For practice. Transition training.

You suggest KISS. I totally agree. KISS. Why is there a perceived or real problem since the magic of EFIS, LNAV/VNAV & Auto-throttle arrived? The whole Children of the Magenta Line' concept. I flew for various airlines with these magic box of tricks. They didn't suddenly erode our skills. We used them every day in the same manner we used the old tech a/c, but it made the job easier and more accurate. That was very satisfying. The pilot orientated management expected it of their crews. Now all you get is don't crash, don't take too much fuel, don't be late, don't deviate from the encyclopedia of SOP's (at your peril), don't practice the black art of manual visual approaches.
The KISS answer is back to the future and restore the black arts every day. If managers aren't going to encourage that, which is free, they certainly are not going to be so charity minded as to provide a big boys toy simulator for your fun. That's impractical considering much of the problem is within airlines who have multitude of bases over the horizon.
It's a problem created by line culture and initial training and it will need to be solved there. The best solutions are those applied to the root causes.
I hate to think what will happen to taxi drivers, lorry drivers and coach drivers who need to navigate the jungle of inner cities after they've spent most of their time in 'drive themself vehicles' on mutli lane motorways. OMG. Manual control close to all those people. And don't start me on auto-parking v DIY.

Cost of Gliding...(then !)

The UK Treasury limited " foreign exchange " to £25 , and later £50 each per annum, with any foreign currency returned to ones Bank. Return fares out and back, could be bought in the U.K. in Sterling.
The cost of hire for an Auster at Croydon or Southend etc. was then £3 per hour. This may give some scale to money and values at that time !

I went for a week long gliding course at Troyes to obtain my A, B, and C certificates. There were few thermals in October, and the Instructor and I communicated in Franglais.

Later I went for a further course near Toulouse, a Ridge site where there was ridge soaring, for endurance. Sometimes this would be with a short winch launch off the side of the hill followed by a turn to land up the slope with what was now a tail wind, or alternatively landing with quite a strong ( for a glider) strong wind, remembering to lower the "into wind wing" before stopping.

LT

The next stage was the "Brevet D" or Silver C which had to be done in two or three flights for Height Gained (1000m or more), Distance (50 Km +) and Duration (5 hours plus) Fewer than 300 UK Silver Cs had been issued at that time.

There were further stages possible, for Gold or Diamond C but I never got near enough to know what they were ! But only for distance and Height gained, even before FTLs came in.

(Duration for me was always less than 2 or 3 hours on single or twin engined aeroplanes. Or more like 15 hours on fours.)

Winch launches were the norm, and economic on petrol at perhaps half a pint per launch which might provide one with several hours of flight - if you found more lift, which might be a thermal, hill lift or if very lucky/ skilled, a Standing wave or a Cb.

Enjoy your Gliding

LT

Ask the simulator maintenance department, and see if they have a tech that can run the panel for you

Thanks for the heads-up Mana., I like the look of that. Any Airbus options yet?

.

A320-X | Flight Sim Labs, Ltd.
This appears to be nearing release. Looks impressive:

Thanks, that (A320) looks impressive!

Have been flying Airbus FBW for 11 years, and the cockpit stuff looked spot on to me.

I will await its release with interest.

In my experience it was despite crusty and difficult captains as well as cowboy captains:ok: