DL my conclusion on your view was based on what was written; my error was not qualifying it as such or leaving other possibilities open.
Your previous experiences (like mine) suggest that the operating environments that we faced tolerated greater error or enabled timely detection of hazardous situations than they do today.
Using this view to looking ahead would be too restrictive and perhaps fail to appreciate how quickly the industry is changing. For this point I include changes in individual’s attitudes and training as well as the environment and potential hazards. Furthermore, within these new hazards I include errors originating from the inappropriate implementation of technology and automated systems.
The cost / benefit aspects are more likely to be driven by the public perception of safety than any cost / safety benefit alone. We are a very safe industry, but expanding. Thus, even with a constant accident rate the number of accidents will increase. If the public view becomes the dominant driver for change, then every opportunity to reduce the accident rate has to be considered.
One alternative is to consider more training to alleviate human error, but according to the experts this is unlikely to succeed, either in changing human susceptibility or within the cost of training everyone to a very high standard.
Another view is to change the environment in which we work, reduce the opportunity for error. In many critical environments we have already implemented ‘information’ defences e.g. EGPWS, ACAS. We have seen major advances in CFIT reduction with GPWS and EGPWS (mid air with ACAS), but now there is evidence that on rare occasions human error (complacency, misjudgement, lack of knowledge) is eroding this new found safety margin. Consider how the industry might react to the first CFIT involving EGPWS – it will happen, but if that moment can be pushed to a future date by fitting an automatic pull up then there is benefit.
On balance, I think that a well-considered implementation of automatic systems could benefit safety.
However, I would accept that the assumptions about an expanding industry may not hold; consider the effect of 9/11, then what if fuel prices spiral upwards, the ‘green’ public perception overtakes the necessity to travel?
One ‘think tank’ session in my old job was to consider removal of flight deck windows or reducing the crew complement; this would be an ‘unacceptable’ proposal to the average pilot, but not impossible if driven by cost at some future date. Remember the days when no-one would contemplate driverless trains, now ask passengers going to LCY what they think … trains OK, but not planes … yet.