It is becoming clear that there are several here who have hit the proverbial nails (plural) squarely “on the head.” Unfortunately, the more “nails” involved, the potential for hitting each “squarely on the head” becomes more problematic … and does so geometrically.
• operators who actively discourage their pilots from manual flying on the line even in good weather …
• operators who have absolutely no problem with their pilots practicing “manual flying” …
• operators who allow their crews to use their discretion to practice manual flying, but very few crew members actually take the opportunity … because they cannot be bothered …
• the occasional simulator LOFT exercise where failures regularly degrade to operating with “emergency power and limited instrumentation” focusing the attention on systems knowledge and operation …
• the favorite excuse for [i[not manually flying[/i] is the perceived workload increase on the PM …
• the un-helpful attitude of individual captains …
• LOFT sessions that are treated as realistically applied “non-jeopardy” exercises by the instructors conducting them …
• the lack of “follow-trough” in cases where a new pilot’s initial training is truncated after completing the prescribed course without providing the availability to reinforce “flight survival skills” …
• the incorrect perception that line training and checks are the low cost/no cost place to cover 'normal' use of all automation …
All of these concerns add multi-dimensional aspects into this out-of-proportion safety failure. Some here lay that accusation at the feet of “the checkies” … and while I completely agree with this … MY interpretation of what “the checkies” should mean, is the national regulatory authorities (plural) – and is only tangently applicable to those who conduct training/checking at the airline. As I’ve said multiple times on this forum, the only things that get done in the airline industry are those things that generate income (or needlessly reduce income) … and … whatever it is that the regulator mandates.
It would seem to me that were the national regulatory authorities, in cooperation with, and equal participation of, airline management representatives, pilot organizations, individual pilots, instructors, evaluators, educators, and trainers, to hold regular standardization review meetings, intended to analyze and adjust the current regulatory requirements for pilot training and testing to ensure that pilots are exposed to all of the current concerns that have varying impact on operational flight safety … and conduct these meetings on a regular basis where the intent would be to formulate and adjust the regulatory requirements on an equitable and across-the-board manner … the overall level of aviation safety would be enhanced.
Such an effort IS possible – and the only reason that I can see that it isn’t happening now, is the level of individual and corporate commitment – which, I believe, could likely be overcome if an internationally recognized body were to initiate such a program … perhaps ICAO or the UK’s Royal Aeronautical Society (???) … and I am convinced that if there were enough pleas from interested personnel (representing those named groups above) certainly one, or both, of those organizations would leap at the chance to provide the necessary facilities to accomplish just such an effort.
The reminder I would offer is a slightly reworded saying … The only thing preventing success would be that interested and knowledgeable persons recognize the situation and collectively decide to do nothing.