So in parallel with the question of automation dependence may be a fear of violation or non-compliance. This goes straight back to the sense of autonomy that should be inherent when ensuring that “the successful outcome of the maneuver is never in doubt”
Don't get me wrong - SOPs are the bedrock of a good safe standard operation, and adherence to them is vital. BUT - there are times when it is necessary to apply basic understanding - and this requires education rather than the slavish following of rules.
Mansfield & Bergerie have both made the same great point. Might not be absolutely in the 'automation dependably' file but relevant. I saw so much over the past years whereby cadets join a rigid SOP airline. They are taught only one method of achieving a task. They are keen but green pilots and terrified of non compliance with SOP's, be it using auto or manual fight. As a result of having a small knowledge data base, and a blinkered view of aviation requirements, they often are slow to realise that their singular technique was not the best applicable to their current scenario. Further their knowledge of all the possibilities available within the AFDS was too low a %.
A simple example: SOP for departure says no use of V/S until flaps are up. SOP for altitude capture says max 1000fpm within 1000' of altitude. 99% of time no problems. Now they have a SID which requires F1 to achieve turn radius. SID cap = 4000'. Passing 3000' F1 ROC = 1500fpm. Inbound traffic descending 5000' and a TA occurs. I suggest V/S 1000fpm to avoid a possible RA (and the associated paperwork). F/O now has a major mental conflict; SOP compliance or application of airmanship. He thinks it is forbidden (violation? unsafe?) to use V/S, but Boeing FCTM has no such restriction. This is a very simple example but there are similar conflicting occurrences where it is more complicated. In these latter scenarios not using the best method available can cause some confusing consequences and delay in action.
Even worse, I once flew with an outfit who had just received the new VNAV/LNAV a/c. They had been taught that in LVL CH descent you increased ROD by increasing MCP speed. So there they were, too high downwind, 210kts, clean and ATC gives descent to circuit altitude, a step down of 4000' before base turn. Solution 1: LVL CH and increase drag & maintain 210kts ready for flaps later in circuit. Solution 2. LVL CH , speed 250kts. (above flap speed) When solution 1 was insisted upon there was a confused silence.
I'm concerned about automatic dependence diluting manual flying skills, but I'm more concerned about automatic dependency causing a dilution of airmanship, situational awareness, and effective management of the flight. IMHO automatic dependance, with only a 50% knowledge of what the automatics are capable of, is very dangerous.
I see too much of this: after a selection the a/c does not perform in the manner you expected. There is a confused pause to try and figure out why; rather than make another simplified selection and force the a/c to do what you want. Even worse, a section is made and it is assumed the a/c will do what you want and there is no follow up monitoring, while you go off on another task, until quite a few moments later. You are really behind the a/c now, playing catch up.
What is missing in normal ops is the application of a non-normal scenario management technique. There are many titles for this, but in principle you identify a problem, consider options, select one to apply, action it and review its effect. There is a complete circle with a feedback loop structure. That is often missing is use of automatics in normal ops. Why? Because it is not taught in normal ops only in non-normal ops. IMHO that is a lack of training awareness and parts of the modern trained monkey syndrome.
Couple all this with quick low hour commands and low time SFI's and the dilution process is complete. In the old days (not always good old) TR courses were conducted by training captains, recurrency could be F/O SFI's. Command
up-grade courses were all captain TRI/TRE. Commands were minimum 5000hrs. Now there are training F/O SFI's at 2 years, even on initial sessions on command courses, and commands at 3000hrs. Is this the best way forward given that the students under training are now joining with so little aviation experience? It's not quite blind leading blind, but it does lead to an eduction based very heavily on a strict following of rigid SOP's in singular methods of operation and heavy use of automatics.