Once again, I agree with my colleague, Centaurus. Autoflight can be a very nice thing to have available in the cockpit – but it can be very much “drug-like” in its habit pattern dependency; and worse, its effect is usually so subtitle that it isn’t recognized until one tries to do without it – out of necessity. What is more, I wouldn’t make the differentiation simply between switching the flight director ON or OFF. The more automatics are used (i.e., use of the autothrottle, use of altitude select or altitude hold – with autopilot or FD, use of an FMS – planning and/or completing climb or descents to final or intermediate points – including entry into or departure from arrival holding patterns; selecting and using en route navigation facilities – including instrument arrival and approach/missed approach facilities; and, in the computer-controlled machines, even the use of “automatic” trim and “g” limit protection; etc.) the more “dependent” the pilot becomes … and, as Centaurus very correctly points out, the more the basic flying skills “fly out of the window,” and it “becomes safer to stick to the automatics.”
I certainly don’t mind the advent of “workload relievers,” and after a very long flight, over night flight, etc., it IS quite relieving to let “George” handle the approach while the flight crew monitors carefully. However, I have seen normally qualified pilots handed an airplane with the autothrottle inop and, as a result, a normal “ILS in VMC” approach flown on the autopilot to the Marker and then hand-flown to landing, be right on the ragged edge of what would be considered acceptable. Why? Simply because of being overly dependent on the autothrottle system to keep up with the multitude of pitch changes encountered during ANY approach trying to maintain the glide slope – even when the runway is, and has been, clearly in sight. IF companies are going to insist on flight crews using automatics under most conditions (and I question the logic behind that position anyway), then it would certainly be incumbent on those companies to ensure that basic flying skills be reviewed in depth and in a determined manner during each recurrent training session – just as reviewing other, not-often seen scenarios, like engine (and other system) failures, very low visibility approaches, extreme crosswind takeoffs and landings, etc.
There is an old and oft repeated saying when speaking more than one language … “if you don’t use it, you’re going to lose it…” and I, for one, strongly believe that applies to basic flying skills at least as much, and perhaps more.