If he can't fly an aircraft to a visual approach on a clear and beautiful VFR day then he has no business being in a cockpit of an aeroplane.
I agree completely, and that of course is any aeroplane. And it is very true that this guy is not the only one with an unease about such a manoeuvre. My last few airlines, large, medium & small a/c, included many F/O's who shied away from making visual circuits, even when there was an ILS at the end of it. They might just get away with a base training type level circuit at 1500', but no way could they do a CDA low drag circuit from downwind or passing overhead. There were some who were enthusiastic and good at it. What troubled me was the spread in talent and attitude. The root cause of that might be found in the selection and training process of the various airlines; plus the line operating philosophy and thus that of the captains. It now seems quite a common philosophy that visual approaches are frowned upon.
Most major airports have PAPI backup to ILS or NPA. But what if the approach aid is u/s? Then you have only the PAPI. However, I've flown to airfields where the PAPI's were also having a bad day. Perhaps it was a circle/visual approach to the non instrument runway. One company had the SOP that a finals OM equivalent had to be constructed and a waypoint with speed & altitude inserted to give VNAV guidance. With that philosophy how can pilots be expected to maintain their MK.1 eyeball skills. And there are still needle & dials a/c flying the skies.
What has happened to the world of 25 years ago when visuals in to any airfield was common, even the major ones, traffic permitting. It helped speed up traffic flow and saved time/fuel. It also kept the skills up for when it was necessary into some tiny inhospitable places. If you fly to Africa it is really necessary to have the basic skills. There's no guarantee things will be working correctly, or at all, no matter what the notams said. Then you needed to know the characteristics of your a/c so that you knew when the approach aids were not kosher.
How have skills levels deteriorated so much? I hear some XAA's suggesting they need to be improved and 'go back to basics', great, but how did we get to this mess in the first place. I think we need to know that to be able to correct the problem. There needs to be a thorough analysis of the airline training culture and the checking culture and the associated philosophies.
We've seen the demise of the profession into to robotic button pushing automons and the associated reduction in perceived status and T's & C's. Perhaps there is a link to the dilution of skills. Less skills less status less pay.Perhaps they have been perceived as unnecessary. A/C are more reliable and have more back-ups. There is more radar; more ILS's etc. Runways are longer. The whole infrastructure is much improved. Extensive cover-all SOP's.No longer are Topguns required.
IMHO when there is a hiccup the pilots need to be a reliable insurance policy and sort it out. The pax pay good money & expect it. They get on an a/c with blind faith. They do not want pilots to be the cause of the hiccup, but if they are then they do not want them to exacerbate the problem. Yet that is what we see happening. Take away the crutches of an ideal day and someone stumbles and falls over. It shouldn't happen.
I wonder what mitigating circumstances will be quoted in all these recent inexplicable serviceable a/c prangs. Obviously it was not on purpose, but it happened for reasons that were not evident to the crew. Why? Once we answer that we can address finding a solution. Let's find the WHY first and find a professional long tern solution, not a knee jerk quick fix.