MU300,
You appear to want to fix the problem of over reliance on automation-with more automation!
No automatic system will ever be perfect, and piling layer after layer of automation into the system simply means we will find a new flaw, that will cause a new type of accident.
After Ceritous we got TCAS. Great kit, but it didn't take long for it to contribute to an accident (DHL/Tupolov).
Because of CFIT we got GPWS. GREAT kit- but, IMHO has led to a down-grade in terrain awareness.
The list goes on.
SOPs and training which ensure the flight path of the aircraft is identical whether or not automatics are involved would lead to a higher situational awareness generally.
Regular hand flying of approaches and a strict culture of down-grading or dis-connecting automatics as an immediate response to anomalous behavior should be an industry standard.
Many times both in the sim and in the aircraft, I've seen the blank-eyed confusion when the automatics do something unexpected. The response is often, in a critical phase of flight, to try and solve the anomaly and get the box doing what it should, rather than switch the damn thing off, try and salvage the situation within SOP stabilization criteria, or go around and sort things out at a safe height.
I fly 777s and it is SOP that the AT is on for all phases of flight. I'm quite convinced this has degraded skills at monitoring airspeed on approach, and left a "It will look after me" mindset.
Regular approaches (in appropriate conditions) with AT off would raise the standard of monitoring when it's on.