OK465;
There's the maligned ongoing technological transition period underway, as usual.
The bottom line being....it will come down to 'knowing your aircraft'....the current one, not the one folks flew 30 years ago.
In my view the transition isn't maligned in discussions on basic techniques. That, and the bottom line, 'knowing your aircraft', a principle with which I strongly agree, are both reinforced in these discussions.
The A320/A330/A340 have superb LNAV/VNAV modes and performed ADF/VOR/LOC(BC)/LOC Only and RNAV approaches beautifully and reliably when flown with full comprehension of the system and the aircraft. For those without that kind of equipment, anything and any knowledge that contributes to enhanced situational awareness which reduces the risk of NPAs is not maligning technical change but ensuring correct, good use of available technology including 'the basics'.
Those who wish for the good old DC3/DC8/DC9 days and dismiss automation as a 'wrong turn', wishing for the standard 'T' instrument arrangement are the ones doing the maligning because the notion of "just tools in the kit" can't be differentiated from "the magic (and economics) of automation".
When you have airlines putting in their published SOPs that, "
It is anticipated that the autopilot will be engaged immediately after takeoff and disconnected on the landing roll", it is the air carrier's management that is misunderstanding and therefore maligning automation's true utility.
It has taken a quarter of a century for this industry to acknowledge what we as pilots said regarding automation when the A320 first came out - that continued ability to hand-fly and remain "in-touch" with the machine is an absolute requirement. That principle has not been served well, as we both know.
Given the changing nature of accidents since the 60's and 70's, my own view is that perhaps others may, but I don't really consider the present sidebar discussion "maligning" the current technical transition.