Relying on flight directors is SOP nowadays with todays pilots going straight from a single or light twin into the RH seat of a jet transport. Some argue that flight directors can have the unfortunate side effect of degrading basic instrument flying skills needed for accurate instrument flying; particularly hand flying. Blind concentration on trying to follow two needles and keep them centred has often caused pilots to "chase" the needles.
So when you are relying 100% on the FD indications to maintain (say) level flight or slight rate of climb during the third segment clean up, chasing the needles while handling an emergency can cause less than optimum acceleration towards clean speed. Now, add limiting terrain or an obstacle at the end of the clean up segment or perhaps even further down the take-off track, it behoves the pilot to reach flaps up clean speed as soon as practical in order to achieve greater obstacle clearance.
If simulator observations are to be relied upon, unless the autopilot is flying the aircraft, pilots can rarely fly the FD needles without occasional "chasing" especially in the roll mode with engine failure and inevitable over-controlling on the rudder pedals.
Those pilots fortunate enough to be allowed by their company to maintain raw data manual flight skills, can often find these skills are handy to fall back upon for maintaining accurate asymmetric flight during the clean up phase. It is no big deal for them, since they find scanning the primary artificial horizon, altimeter, ASI and VSI more efficient and easier, than the intense concentration needed to fly the FD. Thus the pilot maintains better awareness or the "big picture" as against relying on FD needles to the detriment of situational awareness.
Apologies for thread drifting into raw data v flight director age old discussion.
