The problem is human error - (safetypee); downwind wishes to see if automation would provide a solution, or at least an alleviation to this age-old problem and major contributor to aviation accidents.
Dream Land appears to be infallible, will never make an error: I recall that the first and most important aspect of TEM is to accept that everyone makes errors, that error is normal, part of everyday life.
Other arguments against automation cite not being in control or nuisance warnings; yet balancing these concerns are our everyday use of autos for en-route navigation, landing, go-around and generally bailing the crew out when things get difficult. Many lives have been saved by the modern warning systems EGPWS, ACAS, etc.
Why should we be concerned by the proposed use of an automatic function to save our life?
Is it because autos would identify our error (blame), we lose face; but we are currently exposed to these aspects with warning systems and FDRs.
Why be concerned by the perceived reliability. Cat 3 autolands provide 10-9 probability against a fatal accident and EGPWS is several magnitudes more reliable that the old GPWS. We believe in, and use these systems every day.
Do we fear the consequences of the manoeuvre e.g. ACAS manoeuvres toward another aircraft. To answer this we should look at the probabilities and thus assess the risks of these issues against the likely number of occasions that automation is used. The proposal might only be to fly automatically if the human fails; in most operations the human reacts correctly (and does not endanger other aircraft, stall, etc, etc). Thus the use of autos for those high risk events where human error can lead quickly to a fatal result would be a great benefit.
downwind I suggest that you identify the high risk operations (human failure leads quickly to a fatal accident) and also consider cost effectiveness (perhaps why so many ideas has been tried but are not yet in service).
Why are pilots so sceptical its human, we fear the unknown and we think that we need to be hands-on to be in control (not the same as being in command). What we actually need to do is think about the issues, gain a greater understanding of the technology, the risks and the technical facts.
Thinking involves control of the mind. Controlling the mind controls the situation, which is a critical in-flight parameter; but what if we miss-asses the situation. I would prefer automation to help out man and machine teamwork.