Centaurus, thanks, your post (#459) puts ‘competency’ in context; in this instance it relates to modern operations using highly automated aircraft.
There appears to be an assumption (big assumption, but by who) that normal operations will be flown using the automatics and thus appropriate skills (competency) for these are required. What these are, or how are they checked requires further explanation.
This ‘big assumption’ also appears to restrict manual flying skills to non-normal or abnormal conditions, - when the autos are unavailable or unable to cope with conditions. If the assumption, as is likely, considers the frequency of encountering these conditions is low, then risk management might allow for a lower skill level; but even so, the skill (a subset of manual flying) and the level of competency have to be defined. Who does this, how is it achieved?
An important aspect of safety is to write down all of the assumptions, particularly the situations in which they apply. Also state the justification for the assumption including action to be taken by operators.
A glaring omission might be the prohibition of manual flight in normal operations on the basis that the skills are not checked, or if checked they are of a lower standard, thus involve higher risk.
If this is so, then it appears contrary to current thoughts on cognitive skills training / currency required for automatic flight.
What assumptions are published on this issue?