Please explain how you can do that without FD's!!
Very funny!
For those who might actually have serious doubts regarding a pilots ability to "hand fly" PRNAV, RNAV1 procedures or RNP1 route segments with or without FD guidance:
It's really not that challenging folks. It's just basic instrument flying proficiency. You control bank so as to control heading so as to control course so as to keep the CDI centered. You control attitude and thrust so as to control altitude and speed. Basic stuff learned in the beginning. It's not that demanding.
If you maintain your skills that is. When over reliance on automation takes hold, then confidence in your own abilities decreases. Greater reliance on automation results. The insidious cycle of over dependence is perpetuated. Pretty soon even experienced and formerly skilled pilots find themselves rationalizing their dependence on "the magic" as being "normal". A great many airlines and other organizations actively support these excuses with policies and directives encouraging or requiring such reliance. An ill advised approach and a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water in my considered opinion.
It's been my personal experience as an instructor and former check airman on bizjets that hand flying these procedures is one of the few opportunities available to exercise the instrument scan and aircraft control skills associated with basic instrument flying proficiency. The airline arena must surely provide even fewer opportunities.
Sim time doesn't cut it. Owing to cost and scheduling considerations, sim time is cut to the bone and practicing for a few minutes every 6 months is entirely insufficient to maintain basic skills. This can only be done in the airplane on regular flights. In any case the bulk of sim time is reserved for operations which either cannot be done in the airplane or would be highly cost ineffective.
Again according to my own personal observation and experience, those who regularly utilize their basic instrument skills tend to be among the more proficient pilots overall. They handle the airplane with greater precision and smoothness in all phases of flight. While any reasonably tech conscious trained individual can memorize rote procedures and learn which buttons to press in order to cause the automation to execute programmed procedures, not every individual has gained sufficient overall and recency of experience at using lesser levels of automation to develop or maintain the required level of proficiency. Losing use of the autopilot should not be considered to be such a big deal as so many seem to think.
While mastery of the automation is also necessary in today's flight environment, it does not stand alone as a method of safely and efficiently conducting flights. Whether it's fly-by-wire or not, inappropriate automation dependence will continue to be a factor in accidents unless attitudes are modified. Nor are these skills mutually exclusive. In fact they are complimentary. A more balanced approach to the use of automation is clearly necessary given the evidence I've seen.
It should go without saying that proficiency at all levels of automation use is the ideal. As pointed out by others, the appropriate level should be utilized in consideration of workload and weather. Whether it's a nice day in ideal conditions or a tight approach in crap weather at the end of a long day, the situation demands some command judgment in selecting which level of automation is most appropriate. I'm just advocating for basic proficiency being one of the things considered when deciding.
Opinions may vary, but I like to think that most pro pilots believe as I do that better pilots produce better results. And just as an aside, I consider myself to be just as vulnerable to the insidious effects of automation dependence as anyone else. It takes considerable introspective awareness and self discipline to keep stock of and maintain one's own skills. It doesn't help when the system works counter to these objectives by encouraging complacency.