msprj2

Strange how many of you pilots think. My guess is most Captains wont do
it just because its not a good practice to TEACH. This is how bad ideas
get passed around. Just because its legal doesn't make it a good idea.
This why SOP keeps changing, to counter all the bad ideas.

SEMIslave

I don’t think it really matters if a person uses the FD or not. You can’t tell me the flight director is the only thing that keeps someone from striking the tail or stalling it. We’ve all gone through primary training where we learned how takeoff without bending the plane or dying.

There are plenty of appropriate times where one could go without the FD for takeoff or any other phase of flight (except RNAV SID/STAR or RVSM.) Typically a good weather day or a quiet outstation is a good time. That being said, don’t be a hero and do it in the worst conditions. It’s all common sense. Use your best judgement when choosing the level of automation. If you’re the other person who is uncomfortable with it, ask them to do it at a better time where your workload would be acceptable. If you’re never comfortable with it, you might want to practice it yourself once and a while.

If you takeoff raw data and lose an engine: “speed mode, set V2, heading mode, halfbank.” Oh look at that! The FD came back on. Then when it’s stable above 600 agl: autopilot on. You don’t have to be Captain America and keep flying raw data. If the situation changes, change the level of automation.

It really isn’t that difficult or scary. It’s using your brain and piloting skills. To the captains: if your FO does it and scares you give them a helpful critique and let them try it again. (They don’t need to act like God’s gift to aviation though. That’s just toolish.)

Unfortunately Rev 4 prohibits raw data takeoffs for everyone. I’ll miss that bit of discretion we have now. Rant over.

mooney

Well, the 400 foot reference is no longer in the 200 cfm rev 4 as it is in the current revision expanded profile, so we need something else to debate.

TalkTurkey

Sop? So you think the new canpa sop that removes the safety of capturing the lowest altitude with the autopilot is a good sop that enhances safety? I mean lord forbid two new pilots get task-saturated during the most challenging type of approach and let the autopilot fly itself into EGPWS escape maneuvers.

Avroman

It's no different than how we currently fly an ILS... What keeps someone from going too low in that case?

TalkTurkey

I love debating this stuff. Here’s my take on raw data flying (tTrolls welcome). I think the FD should always be used for the takeoff because it’s just a professional decision that shows sound judgment. Then, precluding congested airspace or high workload, I say once the flaps are up and if a pilot wants to practice their scan, have at it. Turn that bad boy off and hone that scan. It’s all good. What’s the big deal?

TalkTurkey

Well, setting DDA using the autopilot to descend to the DDA but then prior to reaching 1000 AGL it calls for us to set missed approach altitude. That means if the pilots aren’t really well in front of the plane, the airplane will continue descending below DDA with nothing but proficiency/egpws or the ground to stop it.

Avroman

Again, what prevents this same problem when flying an ILS? Do you set the altitude to approach minimums or missed approach altitude after you capture the glideslope?

TalkTurkey

When you hear “minimums” on an ILS and don’t see anything, there’s no ambiguity. You go missed. Not the case on a non-precision. The airplane is not always going to be where it needs to be as with an ILS. There are many variables that preclude that. Apples to oranges in my opinion as to how they are flown. On a canpa approach, the plane will descend to minimums at a geographic location in some cases at the runway or miles prior to it.

vessbot

Yes it is the case with CANPA/DDA, that's the whole point of doing it that way instead of the traditional dive and drive.