Lederhosen: We have major carriers on three continents most probably writing off aircraft. Did erosion of manual flying skills play a role? It is clearly too early to be sure. But it must be an issue that is being investigated.
That last sentence is a nice dream, but.... in all the accident reports I've seen the closest there has been to saying the pilot couldn't handle the a/c and thus crashed it is .."pilot error", "perhaps contributed to by spacial disorientation or lack of situational awareness." I've not seen the conclusion that lack of manual flying skills was a causal factor and that such training should be increased, or that the XAA should redefine its test manoeuvres or standards.
AirRabitt: Again an interesting piece. Your philosophy about 'training to an acceptable standard' by spending time on an exercise and changing the degree of difficulty and allowing the student to progress & learn; effectively teaching themselves, is a great one. It sounds very much like the way my basics were taught at PPL level. There was plenty of time, not too much box ticking, and reletively low cost. Sadly, very much so, the self-funded type rating course in a jet doesn't have that luxury. There is fixed time and a very tight syllabus. Often the student will get only 1 shot at an exercise, today; "we'll try again tomorrow, if there's time." Remembering there are 2 students, paying themselves, and each need their fair share of the session. With cadets, 150hrs total, this is very tough. The SFI is aware that any extra training will be a big financial blow to a large debt already running wild. As a result many manoeuvres are 'just good enough' so let's move on to the next box. This is doubly hard on the ethics of the SFI if there is quite a cockpit gradient in capability between the 2 cadets. Each need attention, but one more than the other. It is sad to say that passing the test, and its rudimentary manoeuvres, may take priority over educating to a higher level about the a/c and to a higher level of ability.
That to me is one source of the dilution of skills; a 'just good enough standard through self-funded training and let them sort it out on line training' attitude. It's not the fault of the SFI & TRE, but the pressure of the factory cadet - airline pilot system all at their own cost.
If there was a progressive route up through smaller multi-pilot a/c to smaller jets and then larger versions the necessary skills, both in CRM, MCC, SOP's and handling, could be attained and maintained. If this route is not readily available then the MPL training straight into an airline jet might need to be more in-depth and thorough. Today, the TQ syllabus, IMHO, is more suitable for a jet conversion course from one jet type onto another with full airline multi-crew experience and a proper captain + F/O as crew. To expect 2 cadets from small piston a/c, perhaps not having flown for 12 months, 150hrs total to achieve a solid foundation in a short time at first attempt is perhaps too much.
Perhaps there needs to be another XAA designed course for the now common cadet entry pilot, and especially with 2 at the same time. The course as designed and approved IMHO is not suitable for the students taking it.
To enter university to do an engineering degree you need a high enough level from school in maths & physics at least, perhaps applied mechanics as well: a high level in economics & history won't cut it and you would be rejected. Or, the course would be redesigned to accommodate the student making a change in educational direction.
I'm astonished, when teaching cadets, their low level grasp of mental arithmetic. Ask a simple question and out comes the japanese brain. It's a bit late on approach or takeoff to pull out a chart to determine the head & cross wind; or time & distance, or descent profile. The FMC is a tool not a commander. But that's a discussion already been thrashed. However, it does address the entry level knowledge of a student to the TQ course and how the syllabus needs redesigning to match the cadet's abilities.