Automation Bogie raises it's head yet again

[pool]

Interesting thread, interesting arguments.

I go with what I have experienced the last few years. Some examples:

- In our big company there is not a weekly incident report without unstabilized approaches. The overwhelming reason given is "short cuts and short vectors". Now either there is a lack of capability to calculate distance vs. altitude or a lack of capability to fly the aircraft down slightly higher angles. Mostly both.
- When a AT goes u/s, the approaches often go to at least "uncomfortable". A frenzied scan between the speed on the PFD and the N1/EPR on the engine display leads to pitches between 0°and 8°, bank of more than 10° l/r on the final ILS stage.
- Visual approaches and circlings are treated as demanding procedures (when I started aviation they were the more simple approaches than CatII ...). I observe an abundance of special techniques with the basically obsolete FMC, like drawing 3nm circles, abeam points, altitude reminders etc. Additionally there is a teaching to use/program the FD throughout the whole procedure. Although it might help a bit, people often try to fly it more than looking outside. All this ends in an over reliance on such reminders and on the FD and consequentially a loss of general overview of the simple approach happens.
- The AP is mostly switched off at ~500ft. Initially the FD is religiously followed, but soon it is slightly lost, ~200ft, because the lookout only starts there. The aiming point gets lost down the runway, with very little corrective action, as the "feeling" for the aircraft could never be established in such a short and already fully configured time. The landings are often smooth, but seem somewhat uncontrolled and mainly long.

I do not want to venture into discussing why, just a personal observation to sustain the dire need for attention to the issue of the thread, the issue of automation correlated to the loss of skill.