First of all, sorry, mxs, for the late reply but I've been working...

"Mxsmanic" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Michael Nouak writes:

Oh yeah: I didn't gain any flying experience either from keeping the
needles
centered. And I didn't get to read my newspaper.

So you're saying that even flying the aircraft yourself is essentially
just a matter of watching the needles? Is this because you must stay
exactly right on the flight path? I take it there is very little
margin for pilot discretion on commercial flights.

Let me start again with the short answer, which is, surprise: yes

And now a bit more long-windedness:

To be sure, commercial a/c will fly happily on full manual, i. e. with A/P,
F/D and A/T off. There is no problem flying visual patterns until your tanks
are dry if you're so inclined. You could navigate by pilotage if you wanted
to. You could take off from St. Louis and say to yourself: "If'n I jess
follow that thar rivah down south, b'gosh at some point I must be in
Nawlins." OK, so my twang is pretty bad (hey, I'm just a furrinah :-)), but
I think you get the point.

Unfortunately, that's not what airlining is about. In a commercial
environment, it is your job, as a pilot, to fly SIDs, STARs, and Airways
with best possible precision. The reasons for that precision requirement are
quite numerous. As far as SIDs and STARs are concerned, more often than not
the main reason is noise abatement. Obstacle avoidance is, of course,
another good one! On Airways, the reasons may be to make ATCs job of
providing separation easier; to stay clear of prohibited airspace; etc.

Obviously, best possible precision is achieved by the A/P, which happens to
be linked to the Flight Management System (FMS), which calculates the
required track. However, when flying manually, whether by choice or
malfunction, the next best level of precision is provided by the F/D, which
is also linked to the FMS. And that's what I meant by "keeping the needles
centered." It's my job to fly the required track as accurately as possible,
and I do that best by following the F/D. If the F/D fails, the next best
level of precision is provided by the Navigation Display, which shows, among
other things, the required track, an airplane symbol, the heading I'm flying
and the track I'm flying. With both A/P and F/D inop, I would then try to
manipulate the controls such that the airplane symbol is over the track line
and the indicated track flown coincides with the required track.

I think you can see that a lot of equipment needs to fail to lower the best
possible precision to the level of pilotage.

With all that said, it is possible to deviate from the required track if
necessary. Best example, especially at this time of the year, would be if
you saw a TS (either visually or on weather radar) lying across your track.

A short note about A/Ls:

Long years ago I came into CDG on a flight from LAX and noticed that
the landing was glassy smooth despite essentially zero visibility (in
fact, I didn't know we were on the ground until I saw buildings in the
distance rushing by outside the window). At the time I thought it was
just a very good pilot. Now I suppose that it was actually an
autolanding--the best pilot of all.

During an A/L, the A/P will put the a/c down in the Touch-Down Zone, come
what may. I've seen A/Ls that were smooth as glass, and others that ended
with a pretty solid thump. I'm glad to report that the smoothest landings
I've seen were performed by either myself or my human colleagues!

Crews will usually elect to perform an A/L well before the weather is such
that it is an absolute requirement. With a reported ceiling of 250' and fog
patches, it makes little sense to hand-fly the approach, only to see that at
200', big surprise!, you're in a fog patch and have to go around. It would
also be rather difficult to explain to management.

HTH!

--
Michael Nouak
remove "nospamfor" to reply: