I just feel that relying too much on F/D weakens my scanning skills. I try to fly a raw data approach at least a couple of times a week if I can.

I'm on the pro-200 hour pilot side, too. I am one of them.

Can’t speak for Boeing (though I assume it’s the same) but on the bus, either you nail the flight directors, or you turn them off. Flying through the flight directors may be ok in roll, but will lead you into all sorts of trouble in pitch with the auto thrust engaged.

Might be the same on 777/787, but on all other Boeing products when you fly manually you turn the A/T off. Or switch Speed off and leave it armed for low speed protection but I've never seen anyone doing it.

Recommend reading the FCTM on Boeing's opinion about not following flight directors. But the manual is probably written for us mere mortals, not for the Chuck Yeagers of the sky.

I read it, I switch it off when I think the situation doesn't require it. I did not say I don't follow it if it's left on, I said I have an initial tendency of flying through the FD because I keep scanning what my LOC and GS are telling me. And on departure and climb out I set a pitch attitude that gives me the performance I desire and eventually the FD centers.

​​​​

GC,

Good question. flyfan indicated in an earlier post that EU airlines aren't interested in people who just might have 1500 hours but in a non-airline industry sector. Have to say I don't understand the mindset:

"European aviation is different to American aviation. I wouldn't have minded (in fact: would have liked) to start my career on small Bizjet like a Citation, or doing Medevac, FI etc - BUT these hours are logged for nothing over here, as nearly every airline wants time on at least MTOW >10t. So going the bizjet/medevac route, you're basically stuck in this sector (happened to a friend of mine). FI? Well, nice to have, but is nearly useless for getting an airline job for the same reasons."

To the original question?

• Because Joe Public only want to pay $10 for his ticket to fly across Europe.
• Because aircraft manufacturers build aircraft for the "lowest common denominator" with cockpit and aircraft systems that only need a 200hr pilot to push and pull knobs when the systems work (until they don't).
• Because airlines cut costs to meet this new demand citing these safe aircraft and easy to manage systems.
• Because airline training facilities create the MPL to provide the "pushers and pullers".
• Because airlines apply pressure to Regulatory Authorities to reduce experience levels.
• Because Regulatory Authorities are either a) in the airlines' pockets or b) too **** scared to lose their position/jobs, therefore agree to everything the airlines demand.

Et Voila......we have a system where cost drives safety as opposed to the other way around and Mr $ Mrs JP get to go on a holiday to Magaloof that they would otherwise would not normally be able to afford.

What astounds me about today's approach to aviation, is that this is still a dangerous business (improvements acknowledged, as are comparisons to crossing the road, juggling with knives etc etc), many people die at a single stroke when the Swiss Cheese model comes into full effect. This is why aviation should be expensive, because safety requires and comes at a significant cost. So why oh why has this fundamental fact been glossed over? Because of costs (greed). The cost of safety has now been practically eliminated to allow a flawed concept to run and this is why, BUXXC152, in my opinion we have 200hr cadets in the RHS in Europe and now most of the cockpits in other parts of the world.

Immense unfair and undue pressure is now placed on Captains, whether they be newbies, experienced or trainers. The recent 737 Max events may well be the catalyst that highlight to the public and the industry the catastrophic consequences of cutting costs in every area of aviation and in doing so, creating a swiss cheese model with more holes than cheese.

Rant over...

:D

This needs to be shared with journalists. A very good summary of what's gone wrong since the deregulation of the EU aviation sector.

Forgive me, but didn't the largest aviation crash in history happen before deregulation with the environment being exactly the utopia that you describe? Caused by a crew with an infinite amount of hours and everything else you list? Of what use were all of those things? And that's only one example of how unjustified all this wishful thinking is

No, that is not possible. I guess you mean Tenerife. That was clearly because the cap had not enough hours on Cessna in GA. Otherwise he would not need any stupid clearance and easily managed to jump over that Pan Am and manualy flown to AMS as VFR. Because that is how real pros do that.

So you believe that the introduction of healthy crm philosophies in the flight deck is a direct substitute for the things listed above? If you don't, then why bring it up?

Just maybe, there is more than one possible cause for an accident, and therefore the poor CRM of Tenerife is a separate issue from the poor hand flying experience of today's beginners?

​​​

He was in IOE or whatever they call it across the bond. It's what we call line training. He was not low houred, but new to the airline. He probably had some experience on regional jets.

Exactly my point

Dunno. Maybe he had a lot of time. Maybe all of it, save 30 seconds per leg, was AP on. Who knows?
​
My point is that Tenerife's CRM issue can coexist with today's hand flying experience issue, so the former does not contradict the latter. (Not staking a claim about the truth of the hand flying issue, just that it's not contradicted by Tenerife and that its truth or falsity can only be established in unrelated ways.)

Like, imagine for example that we're in a world with a recent rash of high profile fuel exhaustion crashes. And someone saying that that can't be an issue because look at Tenerife where they were very well fueled.