Humans expected to 'fail'; automation not
Flight guidance system failures are rare occurrences, particularly in those aircraft designed to be operated with advanced technologies. FGS;- FMC, navigation, FD, autopilot, thrust management.
If operations without tech assistance are as described in the preceding 'heroic' posts, as onerous high-workload, unexpected situations, then the circumstances and outcome should be formally investigated.
In the span of a career, advanced technologies have improved safety, but with this improvement a significant change in the operational perception of these systems.
e.g. reacting to a GPWS alert was a safety success - appropriate human action; now-days an alert requires formal reporting and investigation, with the connotation of failure by someone / something.
The objective is to learn, but what; that complex systems have unexpected, successful outcomes, more often defying explanation of why people reacted as they did and saved the situation - as expected.
In an increasingly safe industry the implication is that (explainable) tech failures in technology-depended aircraft should be investigated with similar vigour as inappropriate human behaviour - judged after the fact.
The objective would be to identify and avoid safety issues where changes in standards of human performance, education, training, experience, etc, are unable to provide an equivalent level of safety in modern operations.
mm