SR 71
 

Not in this case. We had traffic and terrain considerations and a minor tech problem. Just my way of practising CRM.

F/D on or off, manual or F/D - it is ok with me subject of course to workload (and perceived ability), and visual approaches are encouraged where appropriate where they will 'facilitate' or improve skills.

It is, however, a good thread, and we have to look at where 'modern' a/c design is taking us. How long before the average C152 has GPS/RNAV etc? The path to the RHS of a jet then follows computer generated inputs from day 1. It is not unusual to see an F/O who cannot grasp the concept of finding one's way around on DR/VOR/DME, or even who is 'lost' without a map display with waypoints and track line - in other words, basic position skills are going. Time and time again in my airline career I have seen the seductive 'head down, sort out the FMC' style when what was needed was 'disconnect and point' - and been 'seduced' myself. Frightening to me, but with the advance of system reliability and automation, should we be looking at only flying automatics in simulator tests? I know not of airbus, but believe that the sim cycle is flown using the automatics? As said above, I have heard that BA are 'discouraging' the use of manual throttle on the AB, and I believe, 777.

Is system reliabilty at that point yet or do some airlines need to review policy?

I would have thought in this era where it is simple to build solid state standby instrumentation it's not so essential to be as good as we all used to be BUT..........


why isn't there more of an effort to make the primary instruments far easier and more basic. I accept that the ng instrumentation we use now are far better than on an old caravelle etc but the philosophy is the same. maybe it's time for a radical rethink eg the way airbus changed things in the eighties with FMS and computetr systems.

horizons and loads of gauges all over the place make things harder during an abnormal. wouldn't it be nice in a critical situation to have information presented more accurately.

why not a voice activated QRH from the egpws. for example............

just a thought.

IMHO, I think it really comes down to how you want to fly, personally I have no problems with raw data..its actually what my company SOP's call for to be used on departures and arrivals.
Some of the places we fly to, require all the automatics to be switched off, and you are left flying a 120 tonne jet purely in manual, a little intimidating at first...but when you get used to it, its really no big deal.
So far as keeping current, I think the biggest problem here is scan-rate...it might sound a bit odd to some, but I use flight-sim every now and then..it helps me develop the scan rate effectively.
I think the other key area is knowing your a/c configuration, and how this effects AOA, power settings, and ROD or ROC. If you put all this into place then you cant go far wrong..and if you do..it just needs small adjustments to regain the correct flight profile.

I dont think raw data is outdated, I think it will continue to be the primary means of accurately flying/navigating an aircraft, after all the FMC's/Air data computers of this world merely filter the info in such a way as to make it more representable to the human brain..nothing more. Basic flying skills..and basic scan rates can do exactly the same thing.


Just my thoughts:ok:

Raw data flying is in Steven Covey metalanguage ... "sharpenning the sword".
When you do get the chance, or if the opportunity arises, take it and enjoy it.

It is pretty safe ....no doubts

This makes the subject of raw data quite topical. Take a quick gander at the Australian Forum regarding an incident today to a MAS B777 that struck trouble some time after departing from Perth. Passengers reported heavy buffeting and aircraft gyrations. Aircraft returned to Perth. Reading between the lines as an armchair expert, it could be that the crew were un-current on basic raw data after an ADIRU problem?