No pilot who has ever hand-flown an ILS in a dark and stormy night more than once would ever denigrate proper and properly used automation. But, as much as automation was developed to assist the pilot, the fallacy has been that many believe that having such automation available warrants a lessening of the time necessary to devote to training. Those who believe this, do so because it is easier, and quicker, to teach the use of automation. But what is often overlooked is the very real possibility of not having the automation at some point – for one of an ever-expanding list of reasons. It is at this point when fundamental “stick-n-rudder” training becomes a lamented loss. Arriving at this juncture is, in my book, what deserves the description COMPLACENCY.
I must say how much I have appreciated all of your erudite and well thought out replies. Believe me there are operators out there - and some of these are major Asian operators in particular, that actively discourage en-route "practice" of hand flying the aircraft. I well remember being astounded on reading the applicable section of the company operations manual of a German LLC with 737's back in the Seventies, which stated in large block type akin to "shouting" "MANUAL FLIGHT IS ONLY TO BE UNDERTAKEN UNDER THE MOST EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES".
Whether or not this could lead to automatic complacency or however you wish to personally define the term, I don't know. But those who originate SOP's would do well to read some of the replies above.