[lucasjung]

There are actually a few levels of automation available to hornet pilots, ranging from (in layman's terms) "a little help staying on-speed and on glideslope" to "fully automatic." Some pilots hardly ever use them, some pilots use them as much as they are allowed (in order to insure proficiency, there are limits in place to make sure the pilots don't become overly reliant on the automation). Most pilots are in-between, using them occasionally, typically when they feel like they're not at their best (e.g. at the end of a 6 hr+ combat sortie into Afghanistan). Even when on full-auto, I don't know any of them who sit "hands folded:" they're ready to take over immediately in case something goes wrong. I've heard stories that some of the test pilots eventually got confortable to take their hands completely off the controls back when this stuff was first being tested, but I doubt if even they made a habit of it.

[grecy]

> I don't know any of them who sit "hands folded:" they're ready to take over immediately in case something goes wrong.

Did you ever hear of something going wrong with the automation?

[lucasjung]

Occasionally it will disengage, leaving the pilot in full control. IIRC, when in full-auto it will automatically wave off (add power and climb out to go around and try again) when it disengages unless the pilot actively takes over; so it wouldn't create an immediately unsafe situation, but it could result in an unneccessary missed opportunity to land.

[grecy]

> when in full-auto it will automatically wave off (add power and climb out to go around and try again) when it disengages

Interesting. So it hasn't disengaged at all, it's just decided to abort the current landing attempt, and go around to try again.

[jarin]

Hoo boy, that could be dangerous if there's something physically wrong with the plane (a non-functional aileron or stabilator, for example).