So, you want to be an airline pilot..

I wish I could have wrote this. Perfect rebuttal in every way.

 

Question, do you utilize CAT 3 procedures in a CAT 2 approach? IN other words,why don't you kick off then autopilot at 100 RA (mins) and land? Is this a company requirement? (NON AA)



Just wondering...BTW great job, glad you were there and a computer wasn't...

 

and RVSM ops, which means pretty much all flying above FL290.

 

Actually the use of an autopilot is mandatory over 29k, right? You might wish to check various airlines for what they require. I believe Southwest does require autopilot use above 10k for fuel efficiency. I don't have time to deal with he balance of your post, but I suggest your personal attacks might get you a vacation here. You might want to increase your med dosage.

Art

 

Sorry they don't have meds for BS detection.

RVSM does require autopilots.

 

Classic Art, complains about personal attacks and then proceeds to make one in the very next sentence.

 

I disagree...
The automation has mainly allowed the manufacturers to eliminate the 3rd person in the cockpit (flight engineer). The operaters love this of course, lower payroll. The two left up front may have better situational awarness, but actually have an increased workload. The newer tech also allows us to takeoff and land in much lower visibility. We're going down to 100' in IMC now in a jet with no autoland. Add terrain, night, and heavy rain/snow to that...lets just say it'll put hair on your chest. Pilots used to have set routes they were checked out on. Now with the increased situational awareness, they may not tell me where I'm going until I get to work. Easier...not in my opinion. Much safer though...

 

On the Air France accident; a direct result of the Multi-crew License currently allowed in Europe. Not the case in the U.S...yet (with the upcoming pilot shortage, they will be trying). Watch out for that one, stick and rudder skills, aerodynamic and systems knowledge were obviously lacking.

 

At my airline, all CAT II or CAT III approaches are to terminate in an autoland or a go-around if there is a failure. I can understand (and would have probably done the same) why if you have the runway and there is a failure you continue to landing, but the op-specs say what they say.

 

Just to clarify, absent an airline requiring the use of an autopilot in RVSM airspace, while it may be implied, the use of the autopilot is not required in RVSM airspace. The FARs only require that the autopilot be operational. That is what the rule states. Also RVSM is not above FL290 it is FL290-FL410.

Automation has made flying a transport category aircraft more complicated in my mind. Because the automation does some of the flying work, you are now tasked with other duties. Hand flew one time from FLL to Nassau in an airbus, there is so much work to do that does not require flying that it was nearly impossible to hand fly the aircraft and build/brief the arrival and approach. So in my mind the automation has simply shifted what the pilots focus on. Not as much stick and rudder skills and much more flight management duties.

But I have to be honest, on a typical day the job is not terribly difficult, however, when things do go wrong, it becomes quite a different story. And that is one reason I love the job so much, you don't have to work your butt off every day and still make a great living.

 

+1

"Pilots are paid for what they know, not what they do."

I figure if there's a couple of guys up front who are prepared to risk their lives to get me there, it's all good.

No jockey? No fly.... Possible to do it without a pilot? Sure. But I want my driver to have skin in the game.

Cheers,
Ian

 

That is exactly what I was saying. Read the last sentence of my post.

Art

 

UND has a renowned aviation department. From a survey of their students.

Pilot Career Is Losing Its Appeal, Shows Survey | Aviation International News

 

An associate I work with at my firm went to UND. He gave up on the airline dream for the same reasons. Although, he's a pretty decent lawyer so I see him going as far as he wants in our aviation defense practice. Smart, analytical guy, I'm sure he would have made a great career pilot.


Mark