What is interesting, in this debate, is that critisicm of lack of real basic flying skills has now migrated down the food chain to the embryonic stages. That is scary and the solution rests firmly on the XAA's and flight school inspectors. Who does the final CPL flight test? Are they locally appointed/approved TRE's or employed XAA examiners? Is there any incentive for flight schools to have high pass rates? Is there an assumption that the CPL student on an airline orientated course will then fall into the talons of the in-house airline training dept. and be beaten into shape.
I wonder, having failed 1 element of my initial IR, if standards are high enough in the early stages. I wonder too at the basic selection process. True, anyone with cash can buy a CPL, but aptitude has to be assessed along the way. I know schools are businesses first & foremost. A difficult conundrum.
From experience I found that the small airlines operating from a few bases, who conducted their training & recurrency at home base, who did not employ self-funded cadets but experienced pilots were more active in encouraging piloting skills to be maintained on the line; certainly in all the various charter companies I flew for. This attitude is also alive and confirmed by friends at some of the EU and Canadian national carriers, even up to B747 size.
What I did find is that the rapidly expanding airlines, who have bases all over the place, have pilots from a rainbow of back-grounds and who do employ a large number of self-funded cadets, have quite the opposite attitude. Very rigid use of automatics and SOP's.
It was felt this was the only way to 'keep a handle' on the safe expansion over the horizon. It might seem that the rapid growth of the cheap ticket market so loved by the ever travelling nouveau pax has been complicit, in some areas, with the dilution of piloting skills.
Now that does need the wisdom of Solomon to solve and reverse.