AN ACR LGT CREW OVERSHOT ITS ALT ON LEVEL-OFF FROM A CLB.

Narrative

WHILE FUNCTIONING IN THE COPLT POS DURING A NEW CAPT CHKOUT; THE NEW CAPT DID NOT HEAR MY CALLOUT; '100 FT TO GO' DURING LEVEL-OFF AT 33000 FT. HE WAS PREOCCUPIED WITH THE MACH AIRSPD WHICH HAD JUST HAD ATTN DRAWN TO IT BY A COMMENT FROM THE FE. I MADE A HAND GESTURE AND VERBAL COMMAND AS WE PASSED THROUGH THE INTENDED LEVEL-OFF ALT. THE ACFT CLB WAS ARRESTED BY 33400 FT BY MAKING A FIRM BUT GRADUAL PUSHOVER TO RETURN TO ASSIGNED ALT. FLT ATTENDANTS WERE UP PERFORMING IN FLT SVC SO THE AGGRESSIVENESS OF THE FLT PATH CORRECTION WAS KEPT TO A REASONABLE LEVEL. NO INQUIRY OR COMMENT WAS MADE BY ATC DURING THE DEV. TCASII WAS NOT OPERATIVE AT THE TIME; SO ANY TFC CONFLICT WHICH MAY HAVE OCCURRED WAS NOT NOTED. THE NEW CAPT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY FLYING AS FO ON AN ACFT TYPE WHICH HAD ALT CAPTURE AS PART OF ITS FLT GUIDANCE SYS. HIS RELIANCE UPON THIS SYS TO HANDLE ALT CAPTURE WAS STILL PRESENT DURING HIS CHKOUT IN THIS EQUIP TYPE WHICH DOES NOT HAVE THIS FEATURE. AS A COMPANY EVALUATOR ON THIS EQUIP TYPE; WE WITNESS CONTINUED PROBLEMS WITH CREWMEN UPGRADING FROM FO ON HIGHLY AUTOMATED EQUIP TO CAPT ON MINIMALLY AUTOMATED EQUIP. MUCH OF A PLT'S BASIC INST FLYING SKILLS ARE DEGRADED OR LOST DUE TO INCREASED RELIANCE UPON THE AUTOMATION TO DO THEIR THINKING AND INST FLYING. IT DEEPLY CONCERNS ME THAT THERE IS SO MUCH EMPHASIS TO UTILIZE THIS AUTOMATION MOST OF THE TIME MUCH TO THE DEGRADATION OF THE PLTS' BASIC FLYING SKILLS. I SPEND MORE OF MY TIME TEACHING VERY BASIC INST FLYING SKILLS TO THOSE LEAVING HIGHLY ADVANCED AUTOMATED ACFT THAN TEACHING SPECIFIC PROCS APPLICABLE TO THE PLTS' TRANSITION TO THE NEW ACFT. MY CONCERN IS FURTHER HEIGHTENED BY THE REALITY THAT PLTS RELYING UPON THE AUTOMATION FOR THE MAJORITY OF THEIR FLYING ARE ILL- PREPARED TO COPE WITH THE DEMANDS OF FLYING THE ACFT SHOULD THESE ADVANCED SYS FAIL UNDER INST EMER CONDITIONS.