BOAC (#149), hopefully avoiding previous debates; we the ‘older’ generation, should also take care not to be “dazzled in the headlights of an imperfect technology and training system”.
What may have been 'basic' to us may not represent current views of training requirements – the minimum skill set to conduct flight operations safely. I stress ‘minimum’ and ‘safe’, used as in airmanship terms which requires additional and progressive acquisition of skills with operational experience – training on the job.
In the view above, I assume that the industry has deliberately changed the required level of training with the advent of advanced technology – automation. If so, then either this training does not match the requirements of the new generation of pilots, perhaps dependant on automation, or it does not match the expectation of the older captains in modern operational situations, of whom most have the relevant experience and skills.
The former leaves new pilots ill-equipped to conduct operations without additional support; the latter places greater workload and responsibility on captains, and in reality, probably both.
These thoughts were developed in the adjacent thread -
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ver-pilot.html (#19)
Many of the problems stem from ‘change’ and how changes have been identified and managed; ‘change’ was also an issue earlier in this thread -
http://www.pprune.org/safety-crm-qa-...ml#post5041334 (#20)
Perhaps what the industry is concerned about (link @ #146) identifies with the relatively recent changes in ‘imperfect technology and training system’, and thus are reactions to first contact with the enemy – no plan survives contact with the enemy. Conversely, is the industry over-reacting to a few surprising ‘automation’ accidents (salience), in what is a very safe mode of transport, but one which always expects improvement?
I agree that the industry needs to review (change) the current situation, but not necessarily ‘back to (the old) basics’ – you cannot turn the clock back.
What has changed? Man, machine, or situational context – the big system – human, technical, social aspects.
What is inadequate about the existing technology and training – remember that nothing is perfect. The man / machine only need to be adequate for the task and context (not perfect safety). Is the current (changed) context too complex for the present man / machine combination?
Thus what needs to be improved? Basics are important, but what are the ‘basic’ skills and tools for today’s context? Will these be adequate for the foreseeable future involving the ‘new’ man /machine and operational situations?
How and when are improvements to be achieved? Perhaps the latter (timing) is the pressing issue.
IMHO the discussion should focus on the changes, not just on taking a stand. If you are going to take a problem to management, have a workable solution beforehand – and one in your favour, safety.