I think the problem is that we don't even recognise the benefits of traditional flying skills anymore. It is not optional to SOP, we need both.
Sometimes you need to think outside the box, but you'll neeg good judgement to do so. Passing on the tradiotional skills to supplement the SOPs is what I mean. We don't do it anymore. We just check that the boy obeys. And he us.
Flying has almost become a procedure that comes out of a committee. Or at least the people in the committees tend to think so.
When something goes wrong the committees will reconvene and come up with more SOP. Unless the guys in the cockpit had enough skill to survive, they'll not be heard in this process.
Hudson case is to the point here. Captain Sullenberger and F/O Skiles were both experienced pilots from a traditional 'school of piloting', and therefore able to make their own quick assesment of the situation. Sioux City DC10 was much of the same, experience and skill replacing what the booklets couldn't tell you. We all benefit from the outcome in the form of SOPs and better design. But also inspiration, I guess.
Then the new SOP will replace the old one - the one that was seen as the only possible version just a while ago. Until a new committee finds reason to change it. In the meantime it is up to the individual crew to win the day, every day - as a routine.
I'll admit that it is nice to know what the guy sitting next to you is doing and that you all speak the same language (I don't mean ICAO 6), but communication was always the key to a happy crew. It was definitely part of that passing-it-on.