"This I think is this biggest argument against automation.
The perspective I proposed is, in an era of concern over the competence and authenticity of airline pilots, you can guarantee quality performance by changing to computer systems which deliver consistency and can be made aware of every known parameter, procedure, and optimum failure response, apart from being largely immune to the temptations of doing things that are not supposed to be done."
I wanted to address this part of your quote in isolation. In no industry in the world can any computer system guarantee quality performance. In all my years of programming, algorithm assessment, design, testing, implementation, and leading specialist teams with their own expertise, it has never worked out that way. During the cold war, it was believed so-called "AI" would be able to interpret Russian and other languages near flawlessly--it is only in the last few years that Een Google translate has become above proficient in a plethora of languages, and even today it often misses translating sub-dialects, and known slang in languages like Bisya (Visya/Cebuano), and Russian. Computer vision is still in many ways in its infancy too--an area I worked on with researchers from Saarland University in Germany. Even in self-driving cars, there are significant performance and safety issues, sometimes ending in death---while aircraft might be in more clear airspace as compared to vehicles on the road--when things go wrong, they can often become widespread fatalities. Clearly, not every pilot is a "PPRUNE heavyweight", but that does not make the argument for autonomous computer systems working perfectly--the negative in one area does not prove positive in another. I have a deep respect for pilots and I love traveling by flight---I work with technology that has enhanced human being's lives--but the limitations are more than most realize.