Whilst we may argue the benefits or otherwise of automation there is one area which could be improved quite drastically, that of the aircraft communicating to the crew what is going to happen.
Cast your mind back to Blake 7, if Zen thought it was a bad idea, it would tell you.
The current EGPWS database for example contains a simple digitised terrain map, unfortunately, because of the lead times between design and certification of such a system it’s probably early 90’s technology with only a few megabytes of storage and could benefit from the addition of a 16gb flash memory stick – problem 1 to be solved by the regulators – allow systems to be hardware upgraded quicker to allow for current technology/software.
So if you GPWS spoke in a firm voice and in good time “excuse me, but unless you climb immediately we are going to impact that mountain ahead 2000ft below the summit”, instead of yelling “pull up”, the crew might be able to understand their situation better.
Such a system would solve cultural respect problems evident in some countries, because the computer wouldn’t care who it was talking to, or in what manner.
Likewise, if two related instruments do not agree with each other, our computer voice might interject with “have you noticed the Captain’s Rad Alt, well my friend the auto throttle thinks we’re on the ground now etc etc”
It seems crews are often told there’s a problem by warning lights and horns, but in amongst what is explainable, what is false and what they are otherwise doing the accident that was preventable, happens, because they had to work out why.
We have the technology to do this now, but we must be quicker at certificating and then allow those systems to be upgraded more easily.