@ pax b, yes l agree. However, operators in satisfying the beanies and lawyers, may only meet the minimum regulatory requirements, where often the reasoning behind the regulatory change is flawed, dated, and may not address the important issues.
Furthermore, each operator / individual can implement the training according to their understanding of the problem (cf range of suggestions in this thread), and then who checks that the output achieves the improvement intended.
I do not have an issue with those who wish for more hand flying, that's good for aviation. But individually, operators, and regulators must not fool themselves that this alone will solve the significant problems which can result in LoC.
How does accumulating manually flown approaches contribute to the avoidance of similar situations to those encountered in recent accidents; crews need to improve understanding and identification of weather threats, aircraft systems abnormalities, and 'off' normal operation (limits of SOPs).