Nick says "I want machines that mostly were trying to help their crews, not turn them upside down after a moment's distraction" - and- "but instead are driven by pride in how long it has been since they had to blame a peer for failing in his job"
i understand what this thread is trying to say/accomplish, and i have had the benefit in moving into a machine that limits my cycles into confined areas by having enough power to complete the task without repetitive trips to the same spot, limiting exposure to the dangers involved.
there is also a GREAT variation in the roles/tasks a helicopter must do. flying runway to runway, i agree with Nicks quotes. make the machine self flyable on a microwace beam, and then install a monkey to open the door at the other end
Put the same machine into a mountaineous region, or pure VFR bush (read forest) transport, firefighting/longlining and i'm afraid that is where the pilot must be paramount, NOT the systemed machine
there is a separation between what we try to accomplish in machine design, and what we have to accomplish as pilots of the machine. I don't beleive we can talk about both as being one entity.
as put forward before, most accidents are pilot error, and dumbing down the pilot will not help the machine getting it's tail stuck into a tree, dynamic roll-over, CFIT in poor weather.
i guess what i'm trying to say is that the TASK of the helicopter defines the type of pilot needed, and the hairy chested guy will always be in demand
and remember, anybody can grow hair on his chest, but it takes a REAL man to wear it off
