Well if you think about it, there isn't too much useful hand time at altitude.Some airlines require it to be on ASAP because LNAV and VNAV combined offer better efficiency.

Some airlines should institute a "Hand Flying Currency" requirement. Yikes!

Well i think it depends on what airline and what surcemestances your flying in, but for what i have heard whas that Easy Jet flew only the departure till about 2500 ft manually and then engauged their AP, dont know for sure if that's true though.

I've flown 737s at two airlines. One airline's pilot culture likes handflying and the pilots often fly up to 10 or 20'k. The other liked A/P at 400' for safety.One company had "good sticks" and the other had good button mashers. One was more likely to commit operational errors and the other more likely to commit control errors.Pick your poison. But, if the chips were down, I'll take the good stick.

I still have a good laugh every time someone has to put someone down for using a system that is the core behind simulation such as autoland. 99.9% of simmers like to autoland when they first get into it and some actually probably never do anything else. So what if any of you do it as you say as "better" or more realistic, get over yourselves. Odd how so many say there are so many links on the subject yet don't even take a second to link what they say they saw too. Pathetic...

... There are more threads on it than rivets in the plane.

That though, had me actually laughing. I may use that.

Pick your poison. But, if the chips were down, I'll take the good stick.

I'd agree. I was just offering a counterpoint. If you look at my tracks on flightaware, you can clearly tell there's no autopilot on, even though I'm up for hours. A few years ago, I flew BCB-DTS-CKM-BCB in a Cessna 207 (15 hours in two days, give or take) without ever touching the AP. I'm not saying that should be a badge of honor, but by the end of it, I had a better feel for the aircraft.

I still have a good laugh every time someone has to put someone down for using a system that is the core behind simulation such as autoland. 99.9% of simmers like to autoland when they first get into it and some actually probably never do anything else. So what if any of you do it as you say as "better" or more realistic, get over yourselves. Odd how so many say there are so many links on the subject yet don't even take a second to link what they say they saw too. Pathetic...

Dan, I love ya and you know I agree with you on most things, but I'm gonna disagree here, to a certain degree.First, nobody should be put down for anything, but nobody learns unless they're corrected in mistakes (yes, it is a mistake to think that autoland is the norm, no matter how you slice that bread). My problem is that I don't make explanations with bunny rabbits and rainbows, which people take as terse and irritated (if you read my first post here, you can see how it could go either way).People are welcome to fall back on the autoland all they want, but they're never going to be able to explore airports without ILS. Granted, most places that don't have ILS, can't handle a 73' (at least here in the States), but still. The misconception also likely strikes a nerve with some, who have put in the time to learn without the automation (or properly work with it), so responses are likely somewhat impassioned with that group. Letting the plane land for you is pretty cool, and it's a neat trick to show off to people, but this is an audience who bought a plane simulating (as near as possible) the exact behaviors of the real thing. To that audience, it's reasonable to expect a little irritation (note: irritation, not put downs or slams) when someone doesn't bother to read a little about the plane either here or in the manuals (or at least the tutorial). It still baffles me why people spend $70 for an in-depth simulation when they're wanting to just do what they could do with the default 738.Second, on the matter of not linking, I firmly believe that it is not my job to go sifting through the endless topics to go find your answer for you. By pointing out that there are numerous topics here, we're at least confirming the answer can be found here. Most often that also comes with a reference to the manuals, which is the obvious answer, but again, people are too lazy for that (even though it's the simplest and fastest way to get an answer: CTRL + F). If you ask a question and I tell you where to find it, it is in fact an answer. I think the reason people get irritated about it is that it requires effort on their part, and teachers gave them the same response from time to time in school. The best way to utilize the forum is for explanation and clarification of information. Posting the same thing over and over again because people are unwilling to search is inefficient and a waste of time in the end, for both parties.

The point is, if people try to master autoland, they are scolded for unrealism... How is NOT knowing how to do an autoland realistic? Even if real pilots do it twice a year, they do know how to do it.

Edited January 5, 201214 yr by Fabo

No. I fully understand wanting to know how to set up the aircraft to land itself. Those people will not be scolded as unrealistic.The people I would scold would be those who refuse to take the yoke and land themselves, and instead choose autoland because they can't do it on their own. Ask the entire group of people who autoland more often than not and I'd assert that you'd find a good portion of them aren't doing it to teach themselves new things, they're simply avoiding learning something new (the fundamental and inevitable end to every flight: the landing).