Interesting discussion. I'd like to add another perspective if I may.
Attitude. Not just the attitude of the airplane, but of the pilot. I started off with basic flight instruments like most pilots of my civilian general aviation background. Later when I started flying jets, we had the Collins FD109. It worked well enough most of the time, but didn't always keep up when capturing VOR radials, altitudes, ILS localizers or glideslopes. So one had to anticipate a bit and try to stay "slightly ahead" of the FD command bars. That meant scanning the raw data and "predicting" when the command bars should react. If the bars moved when they should, follow them. If not, fly "through" them.
The first line Captain I flew with regularly called it the "flight advisor". He cautioned against allowing it to act as an "electronic flight instructor". Though he was joking, there was a serious side to his characterizations. For various reasons, depending upon the flight guidance computer to provide timely and correct pitch and roll commands could sometimes lead to some pretty rough or oscillatory intercepts. The A/P didn't make very smooth intercepts either because it relied upon the same guidance. So if you wanted fly smooth and accurate course or altitude captures, you hand flew it just slightly ahead of the FD command. You could help the automation to work better by making very shallow intercepts, but this is not always practical in the approach environment.
Of course, most of the analogue electromechanical FD issues are all but gone in later generation digital avionics, but the analogue mindset will still serve a pilot well when surprises occur.
Returning to the subject of pilot attitude, I think Captain E. had it right. The flight director is best considered to be an advisor, not an instructor! And if a pilot maintains that mental "attitude" in all subsequent flying, the reaction to an uncommanded change of attitude is more likely to be automatic for that pilot. Click-Click, crosscheck, flight controls and thrust as appropriate. Get it back to where it's supposed to be, (course altitude, speed) THEN communicate, analyze, troubleshoot, checklists etc...
Someone brought up the subject of training earlier. Initial training on two of my types included both unusual attitude recovery and a couple of opportunities to put that training to work in the form of unannounced surprise upsets. Sim instructors the world over have a sadistic streak that can be put to good advantage! During a complex RNAV DP while on A/P, a distraction or two can be introduced along with an uncommanded attitude deviation. Pitch trim runaway is a favorite of course, but wake vortex and several other problems are equally demonstrative and provide a good opportunity to put briefing room theory into practice. I once saw a guy throw up his hands and scream when the airplane rolled over. (the instructor had secretly asked him to) I was supposed to take over like a good FO should. Cardiac stress test passed!
My point regarding pilot attitude is that the pilot must believe in their own ability to fly the airplane on raw attitude and performance data. This belief can only be earned by doing it. In normal line operations these days, various levels of automation will be engaged most of the time. So the basic attitude instrument skills must be revisited often, and re-enforced by realistic simulator training scenarios requiring their use.
Of course, all of the above is just my own take on what I see as a problem of some pilots attitude towards their role as a pilot. They didn't acquire this attitude problem all on their own either. Manufacturers, operators and regulatory authorities had their roles in promoting an "automation first" mindset across the industry. That's what needs to change. Automation is fantastic in so many ways. Until it isn't.
Last edited by westhawk; 25th Jan 2019 at 07:29.