An extract from the SAFO stated that a recent analysis of flight operations data (including normal flight operations, incidents and accidents) identified an increase in manual handling errors and “the FAA believes maintaining and improving the knowledge and skills for manual flight operations is necessary for safe flight operations.”
Manual flying without first switching off FD information will not increase basic handling or instrument flying skills.
An excellent review of the topic, but sadly one that is at odds with many so-called top training airlines. Their philosophy is opposite to the 2 statements. A problem occurs, perhaps with a manual flight manoeuvre e.g. a visually flown circuit with FD's & A/T off. There is an increase in GA's. Solution? Ban the whole damn thing. Mandatory use of FD's at all times: discouragement of shortened manual circuits; mandatory LNAV/VNAV guidance to medium finals on visual circuits; recommended use of automatics to fly visual circuits; the only raw data flying in the TR sim is the mandatory raw data ILS; reduced manual flying in TR syllabi i.e. no raw data GH. Everything is FD or full automatics.
It is very common, even if briefed, DO NOT rotate to the pitch bar on lift off, especially on engine failure. Rotate to an attitude pause, and THEN the pitch bar. So often the pitch bar is above the ideal attitude and so the speed falls, and on SE that is not a bon ideé. You watch guys porpoise their way up the first 300' and settle at what was the correct ideal attitude all along. If only they had paused on first rotation the FD 'would have followed them'. The dog would wag the tail. Same with slaloming down the ILS chasing the LOC FD.
The correct philosophy, as stated, is follow the FD if the guidance is correct, or re-program it or switch it off. How do you know it is correct unless you scan the basic instruments that are feeding into the FD. Once you have confidence that is kosher, then use it as a tool. The best computer should be between your ears. That is too often forgotten and not enough good data & programs are downloaded and updated often enough. Manual practice will help in that regard and also as a healthy 'reboot'. One way the sports players keep sharp is practice, then play and keep the skills tined with gentle practice. Under stress they can draw on those skills and confidence gained during the practice and succeed. In many accidents we detect headless chickens and arms flashing around like an orangutang on acid.
A competent pilot under stress should not be operating at 100%, you hope. The better the training and more confidence the pilot has the more capacity they will have in a non-normal scenario to manage & handle it. Assessment & decision making will still be possible while you handle the a/c. It's easy if HAL is in CMD, but you should be able to manually stabilise the a/c enough to think outside basic control functions.
Many airlines say that non FD pure manual base training is sufficient to ingrain those skills; and then forbid such heresy ever again. They also say that a line flight is not the place to practice; that's what sims are for. Maybe if you give enough opportunity, but they don't. In any case it shouldn't be 'practicing on the line' it should be maintaining a basic skill that was gained and never lost.
There are airlines that follow this idea and we don't hear them trumpet their high levels of training & skills. There are others who straight-jacket their crews in rigid SOP's and claim a supreme level of training. It's an interesting and open debate with 2 very defined camps. It is a topic that a professional training symposium could debate over a 2 day conference of other topics, and a show of hands amongst the delegates would be an interesting finale. Has that ever happened? There have been lectures from both camps; there have been published learnings as per the FAA above; has there been an open debate? Without a learned opinion from the training and regulatory departments how can a solution be found to move forward in an improving and evolutionary manner?