Centaurus, et al, for the objective of debate, I disagree about the need for more hand flying.
Much of the discussion looks to future wish-lists, based on existing operations (what is or what was - solve today’s problems), instead we need to look further forward and consider, ‘what could be’.
This would not be dominated by our (piloting) point of view, but those of society and the industry.
A major driver will be economics. Technology is already at a level where single pilot operations are viable, but this requires expensive proof of concept, certification, and social - public acceptance. I don’t see that latter as dominating the debate, thus the issue comes down to the cost of achieving change against the long term benefits; and an obstacle there is in our thinking.
Small cargo aircraft can be single pilot, but these operations are more likely to be challenged by fully automatic, autonomous, pilotless aircraft as the costs of procurement decrease. There are Nav, ATC, conflict problems to solve, but that’s the challenge.
Commuter operations may be single pilot plus a helper ‘pilot’ (no disrespect for helpers), thus changing to full automation plus single ‘helper’ is feasible with existing technologies, but cost of change has to be balanced; perhaps not just yet.
Large commercial aircraft could easily follow the ideas of commuter operations, but I judge that this might not be so readily accepted - certification, society; so there may be interim stage.
This would be the basis of a new commercial aircraft; two crew, fully automated, where pilot assistance is only required for those situations which have not been foreseen (which unfortunately appear in many recent accidents). The new pilot-systems operator (‘tolip’), would not need extensive physical flying skills, only those necessary to achieve an acceptable outcome for rare total systems failures - ‘if you can walk away from it’. Cognitive skills would be those associated with the new systems, not those based on current flying standards.
Thus the challenge is how to improve technological standards and levels of safety; the present is a pointer to the future.
A significant difficulty is in how much the industry assumes or expects from pilot intervention in exceptional circumstance. Currently many views would cite the pilot as the weak link, yet with thoughtful analysis, it is the human contribution elsewhere which falls down.
If we can understand these aspects, then, in time, the ‘new’ two crew aircraft could revert to one, and further to …… 0
There are arguments about incapacitation etc, but if automation improves along current lines then we pilots will fall over more frequently than the technology.
There will be problems in achieving these changes; where will the interim pilots come from before we reach the ‘tolip’ stage. Will the human in design be the weakest link, or in certification, manufacturing and maintenance. What will be the environmental views, demand for travel, alternative transport.
… the present is a pointer, ‘the key’, to the future… but that key is not more hand flying, it’s in the way we think about operating … safely.