In my book, the "generation of greyhair examiners and course developers" should take on the task (- and I'm sure the good ones do) of ensuring that the "legion of underachieveing brats" is made to understand basic flying, including how to plan and fly a descent without a computer.
It would be a great pleasure to do so,.....but...SOP's preclude it, or management attitudes do. Further, if you tried, on the line, to instill some semblance of what is being discussed, it would take a very long time as the foundations have not been laid in the TQ training. That has been minimised and diluted as a cost saving measure. Students paying for themselves can not afford the 3 or 4 extra sim sessions which should be there for basic handling skills. Companies paying for the training don't want to do more than required. They seem content to have robotic trained monkeys up front. Pilots who can not be trusted to fly visual approaches without significant LNAV VNAV backup. I always thought the most useful tools in a visual approach were Mk.1 eyeball and a consumate understanding of pitch & power. Someone said the physics of a jet and a Cessna are similar. Correct. Give the beast the correct amount of energy and it will do what you want; give it more or less and it will do something surprising. That means you're not in control, which being the PF is rather disappointing. George can do a wonderful job; it can also bite your rear-end. So to follow the suggestion of teaching raw data descents to a descending low drag visual circuit as the norm, which it was in the clock & dials day, would be a real thrill and frowned upon very heavily. It'd take a full summer season. I hear from FDM experts that in CAVOK most G/A's follow screwed up visuals. Amazing. Solution? discourage the troops from doing them as a time/fuel saving method because if they mess it up any saving has been reversed. Encourage robtic techniques. Trouble then is when command upgrade time comes, the TRE expects to see some initiative, strong situational awareness, ability to multi-task in non-normal scenarios. If the basic foundations are not there to let you relax and manage the a/c too much energy and capacity is used during the tasks and it all breaks down.
I fly with F/O's who at 26 have 3000hrs and are expecting a command shot soon. How do % fail rates compare between companies? Long & short-haul. But also compare this to the era of 7-10 years in a company, 5000hours and the likely hood to have seen and learnt from some grey haired old farts during the various interesting scenarios that inevitably threw themselves in your face during your apprenticeship. Now, there seems an assumption that 4 years, 3000hrs, a couple of OK prof checks and it's time for 4 stripes. I find that some SFO's coming up for consideration, are still reluctant to make the first call when PF. I always throw the ball into their court, but they still ask what "I'd like to do." Your choice, mate; I'll tell you if I disagree. That attitude is not an option on a command course.
I did hear 1 chief TC say he would like to teach better handling techniques, but there is no time. With companies having bases all over the world it is very difficult to keep tabs on standards. So, dum it down to what you know works; use AFDS as amuch as possible; write a detailed SOP book and hope everyone plays the game. I can understand that solution; it just very soul destroying. I learnt BOAC's quoted techniques on the line. It was the way everyone flew, and most were good at. They'd all come through he same mill. Shame times have changed.
It will be interesting, but perhaps not possible, to hear what TC's in 10 years are saying. They will have come from this generation of teachings and be passing it on. I wonder what they will find on the command courses in the future. I wonder if the checking syllabus will have changed. In 15 years the CAA's will be staffed by people from todays teaching regieme. Will they change anything?