Originally Posted by
RAT 5
For them safety & efficiency = automatics. They have proved reliable. Sadly it is difficult to shoot down completely, and this circular
This is a legitimate paradox. Any individual flight, taken on its own, is safer on autopilot. I don't think anyone can reasonably argue against this. Even in the most benign of conditions humans are prone to dangerous attention lapses.
But, considering the effect of consistent lack of practice (and lack of learning in the first place) on flying skill, which is still the final safety backstop when things go haywire, overall safety is decreased by constant autopilot. I didn't think this could be reasonably argued against either, but some are. We are accused of treating the airline as our playground.
So how do you reconcile the two opposing effects, which are on different timescales? The problem with the short-sighted SOP writers who mandate constant automaton is that they only recognize the first of the two.
If what I've said is true, then (by turning off the autopilot) we must necessarily decrease safety for an individual flight to increase safety for all future flights. But how do you quantify the second effect to convince the bean counters that it's worth it? I don't think you can, and from this I also conclude that we're ultimately going to drone airliners, which are only prone to the first effect. It's the only solution to the paradox.