I don't disagree with the fact that improved technology will increase safety, decrease cockpit workload, and will subsequently decrease training requirements. However, I'm certain that the technology won't make it into the aircraft until the regulators step in. As long as companies are allowed to fly with 1963 technology, they will. Obviously if you can prove that adding the technology is cheaper than paying liability then a smart company will go that way. Realistically, that proof won't be available because nobody has yet spent the money to install the technology. Instead companies will provide glossy brochures with projected statistics, that may or may not be accurate.
The amazing technology that most are agreeing should be in the cockpits could have been developed and fielded years ago. Most of it has been to some extent.
The 1963 medical technology analogy is only partly valid. Another reason (other than "Quality of Care") for the amount of new technology in medicine is that it uses less manpower and is maintainable (both are true to an extent for the helicopter industry). The side of the argument that seems to work in favour of this discussion does not completely apply because the legal involvement in the medical field is directing their every move. To avoid liability they bring in new equipment. Much of it is just to make it look like they're doing all they can, but it is also due to a real improvement in patient care. Of course, the helicopter industry hasn't been developing this way to the same extent.
If the regulations demanded the new technology, it would have been used. If you don't believe me, look at bicycle helmet laws, airbag equipment requirements, daytime running lights, seatbelt use laws, seatbelt equipment requirements, etc.
Matthew.