Am I right in thinking that the most commonly-quoted reasons for retention of pilots, despite advances in automation, are that only a human can think flexibly enough to react to any unforeseen circumstance, and that only a human can continue to fly the aircraft when critical elements of automation fail? If I'm right then it follows that a pilot must have as his/her sine qua non the ability to fly (and land) the aeroplane with degraded systems, possibly in poor weather, possibly with no availability of external navigation aids, possibly with communication failures, etc etc. If these are not the first and foremost requirements, then why retain pilots at all? If 'lack of ILS' or 'elected to fly a visual approach' are even cited as contributory factors in this accident, is the piloting profession moving itself a step closer to oblivion? The human beings at the front end have to be capable of safely hand-flying the aircraft with the minimum of external assistance, which implies training and then regular proper practice (not just taking manual control of a stabilised approach on short finals) , or they will in time come to be viewed as surplus to requirements.
Last edited by Easy Street; 9th Jul 2013 at 21:09.