1. Automation is great and safe, if given as a tool or aid a pilot MAY use if deemed useful.
2. Automation leeds into a cul de sac if IMPOSED on a pilot through FCOM and SOP.
Imposing something on someone when he actually wouldn't want it, leads to a conflict. There is a reason why he doesn't want it, rightfully or not, but it creates insecurity and defiance in his subconscience. He suspiciously controls the automatics, unconsciously hoping it will prove doing worse than himself would have, but then anxiously controlling it not beeing completely sure if he's right or the system will prove him wrong by working better or even in a way he has not anticipated.
Another effect of this is with repetitive situations like that, and with most of these having the automation working satisfactory, most pilots lose their defiance to some sort of resignation and boredom ("so what...") which leads to distancing himself from the system, not keeping up to date in training, which finally leads to what is discussed here, complacency.
I would however call it rampant incompetence. THAT is the real danger.
How can we counteract? By even more strict SOPs? No, it proves to be counterproductive. By more training? Maybe, but training the ways you don't like never really proved persistant.
Personally I am fully sustaining the entry argument:
Automation is great and safe, if given as a tool or aid a pilot MAY use if deemed useful.
Manufacturors and Chief Pilots would be well advised to go this path. In my 30 years of aviation I have run through many systems, aircraft, manufacturors, sops, doctrines etc. etc. One thing has been around pilots ever since and has never changed: If you give them a option, it will be used and used cleverly more often than not. If you impose something on them, it will be mostly followed but more often than anticipated it will be defied and circumnavigated a little less cleverly.
Now what seems to be more intelligent and therefore safer?
GMDS