Yes, I think there are two elements to this.
One is being able to fly manually, the other is being able to navigate accurately using only raw data.
Being able to fly manually means having the proven ability to direct the attitude, path and speed of an aircraft in the air mass, by reference to the primary flight display - pitch, bank, speed, Alt and V/S - and no flight director. Then trim it to maintain attitude with hands and feet off the controls; and manually adjust thrust to set the required speed. Then do it again following config or speed changes. This is a most fundamental requirement and ALL pilots should be able to do this to keep their licence.
The second element is navigation with reference to raw data. This is more of a grey area in my mind. If you navigate with raw data on a daily basis, you become very accomplished and accurate - I am sure that many of us flew our first commercial contracts in raw data aircraft, so this became second nature to us. However, some raw data displays and presentations leave a lot to be desired. Tracking an NDB in a PA 28 can be hard work; doing the same in a Dash 8 - in which you can overlay the NDB course bug onto the magnetic heading rose, which is automatically synced to magnetic north - is much easier. But is that "cheating"? Having an FMGS do it and drive flight directors, is obviously much easier again, (and essential for some navigation protocols).
In modern flying, do we need pilots to be able to accurately track an NDB with raw data? If you have lost most of your Nav systems in a modern aircraft AND have to land only via a raw data NDB procedure - displayed on the tiny back-up instrument(s) - it is a very very bad day - normally systems can be reset, or there will be at least a VOR or a Cat l ILS approach or radar vectors available, or within easy reach.
.
Last edited by Uplinker; 1st Jan 2021 at 12:17.