Asiana flight crash at San Francisco

[RAT 5]

I find it hard to imagine a justification for bestowing "qualified" status to any position that would be at the controls of any aircraft that did not include the ability to shoot a visual approach in VMC,

Agree. However the requirement for test would need to be instigated by XAA's and they don't. Further more the airlines actively discourage visual approaches as crews without training and practice tend to screw up and cost time and money. The gulf in 'piloting' ability between the major airport iLS jockeys and the charter carrier Greek island visual pilots is greater than it should be. I used to fly for one of the 'discouraging airlines. Occasionally an F/O would ask permission on a severe clear day to conduct a downwind visual circuit to an ILS. Be my guest. The ensuing horlicks was interesting. I give credit that they wanted to try; they explained that with so little training or practice it was difficult etc.
The TQ courses designed by the airlines and approved by the XAA's are both good & bad at the same time. They do not produce pilots and their line flying does not either. I reckon that give a modern young pilot a visual approach from 20nm 6000' 210kts on a severe clear day, with no ILS or PAPI's they could not do a CDA and be stable at 1000'. I doubt many new young captains could either.
The same true for a descending visual circuit from 3000' abeam. I find that very very sad; indeed perhaps unacceptable. I will not speculate on the pax opinion. It is a sad state of affairs and XAA's and airlines must take some responsibility.

The engines would need five seconds or more to produce significant thrust

I can't remember from my CF-6 days, but on CFM-56's I used to suggest a min of 40% N2 on finals, for instant response, but if idle was needed to ensure that you had 40% when your speed was target +5kts at the latest, again to give instant response to freeze you at target speed when it was reached.

These protections activate only in situations where the correct control of the plane has been lost, alfa floor activates when the plane approaches stall AOA.

I'm not a FBW pilot, but is this not similar to the A320 crash at Basle? They descended onto the trees expecting the A/T to spool up. An Indian pilot did exactly the same thing a couple of years later and planted the a/c short of the runway, watching & waiting but doing nothing, as was the A320.

Capable, well trained and current truck drivers is the answer.......but who pays for the training?

The analogy of the truck drivers and the automated parking system is excellent. Money talks: Who pays for the training should not matter. If the training is necessary for the qualification then it gets paid by necessity. How, is a debate, but where we are now is that the training is so expensive, and pilots are self-funded, that basic elements have been chopped. Even the basic CPL is 100hrs less than 40 years ago. Sims can do some IR training, but not all. Just watch the ladies in the streets trying to park the SUV without parking sensors. Good game, but we are discussing something more critical than a dented shopping car.

Three pilots let a perfectly good B777 fly into the rocks because they didn't know how to fly an airplane. They were trained to program a computer, not fly an airplane.

In many TQ courses I've given the FBS is dedicated to systems knowledge and operation, both normal & non-normal and all on autopilot, except for takeoff. 20hrs of button pushing. FFS then commences with a token 2hrs of manual flying ticking the boxes of turns, stalls, buffets, FD ILS's & raw data ILS's. Once that's done the next 32hrs of PF/PNF is taken up with autopilot operation, but manual landings, while various QRH items are ticked off and the accompanying emergencies are also ticked off. Thus the total manual flying in a TQ course, before base training, is 2-4 hrs. assuming a PCST session of 1 hr. On the line it is autopilot all the time. They think it is 'sportive' to disconnect on an ILS at 2000' if visual; or perhaps 1000' if a x-wind. Airlines often prohibit visual circuits with finals <4nm, yet base training used 800'. Not only that, but they want an LNAV/VNAV guidance to he visual finals. Give me strength!
In one TQ course a very intelligent lad, and well prepared in his studies, sharp and very computer literate: the a/c was not doing what he wanted on autopilot. I suggested LVLCHG or HDGSEL would help solve the problem quickly. No; he was straight into the FMC and dancing over the keys with gay abandon. Head down and wanting Bill Gates/Mr. Mac to give him guidance. I suggested rather disappointedly that as he wanted to be a pilot perhaps he might like to fly the a/c out of the problem; or at least use the MCP directly to have control. This was not impressive. In 5 years he and his ilk will be captains teaching new wannabes. More AGH! & Ouch! Get me out of here.

But surely there is a massive wake-up call here. I find it trite to read all the ergonomists and social behaviour gurus talking about 'training pilots in different skills; humans are bad automation monitors etc; the interface of human and automation needs to be better understood; perhaps even that the pool of pilots should come from a different back ground than previously'. All fine and dandy, but that does not excuse an industry from failing to train a pilot to fly an aeroplane. Once you can fly it you then learn how to operate it. The flying bit has been by-passd and needs recovering. Base training is insufficient.