When everything is running right flying is pretty easy it's when the
technology breaks down or things go wrong that we are left with basic flying and handling skills.
....
Technology and terminology is all fantastic but most important of all is still handling piloting skills which in themselves lead to correct descision making
Who is saying that handling is not important? No-one. But what handling skills don't do is trump everything else. I could equally reverse what you've said....eg. when handling skills break down, we are left with technology. Professional pilots of the 1930s or 1950s I am sure had a high level of your right-stuff "handling skills". But they crashed all the time.
Take CFIT. Historically, one of the biggest killers in CAT or GA. What the @?!%* does handling have to do with CFIT avoidance? There's a plateau beyond which no amount of navigation, CRM and SOP training is going to improve CFIT accident rates because crews of one or two human pilots are going to make mistakes. The vast improvement beyond this plateau was down, initially, to GPWS and, ultimately, EGPWS. Of course, it doesn't eliminate CFIT entirely, but it has done for all practical purposes enroute, although not in the final approach phase if people are going to descend below minima or attempt approaches in IMC to VFR airports.
It's easy, sadly, to read of CFIT accidents in light aircraft in Europe. I don't ever remember reading of an enroute CFIT in a light aircraft equipped with TAWS. You could argue that TAWS in light aircraft might lead to "over-reliance" and over-confidence and thus more danger. But, I believe the evidence is that this is totally false and that TAWS is a major safety benefit.
With technology, training and handling, my sense is the right answer is balance. Let's use the Air France crash in the South Atlantic as an example. It led to loads of forum pontificators bemoaning the loss of real-man handling skills in airline flying. As a totally non-expert GA bloke I am not going to have a view with much validity, but, nevertheless, my view is that modern airline technology and training methods avoid 10 or 100 accidents for every one that could be attributed to a lack of handling skill. I am sure the industry has taken on lessons from the AF tragedy, but I doubt it will change the balance I mention in terms of technology and training.
In GA, let's face it, the balance of training is towards handling and maneouvers. It's better in the US, but certainly very traditional in the UK. A Cirrus pilot still has to complete courses and pass checkrides predominantly related to handling. Being realistic, after 100 years of people being taught to fly small airplanes I don't think we will see major improvements in what handling skills can be expected of a typical private pilot. Similarly, I don't see that serious GA accidents are significantly down to handling skill issues, certainly not ones that could be avoided by more 'extreme' aerobatic or spin training.
It seems to me that the Cirrus philosophy is down to augmenting the basic private pilot's "hygiene level" handling skills with safety technology. The recommendations of the Cirrus training community on CAPS deployment I think simply recognise the reality of risk. If CAPS has a very low risk (say 5%), then deployment in a scenario where attempting a non-CAPS emergency landing or recovery has a risk of more than 5% is the right thing. It is not "complacent" or "over-reliant", it is the correct decision-making. Yes, the success rate of forced landings or loss of control at higher altitudes should be quite high. But if the success rate of CAPS deployment is
higher, then shouldn't pilots deploy?
My sense of your concern about "over reliance" is that, in fact, the Cirrus community became concerned with "under reliance" - ie. that there were too many fatal accidents without CAPS deployment where pilots were relying on their handling skills and not on the technology, hence the emphasis on deployment in recent years.
Note that this is entirely a statistical argument. One rarely reads of an accident report where better actions by the pilot wouldn't have avoided a tragedy. Of course one could point back to that and say "well if he'd had 5hrs proper aeros training etc etc". But the point on CAPS is that given the realistic plateau that one can get to with private pilot handling training, there are many scenarios where CAPS deployment is
statistically the better course of action, even if someone could read about it afterwards and think with superior handling skills, they'd have saved the day.
brgds
421C