I have not read Learmount's article, but I still believe that we should rather be designing pilots INTO the system. Automation is a wonderful thing, and as some of us know, means we can nod off on along sector leaving 't'other to monitor the 'perfect' systems
However, I have never been so 'in the loop' as I was at 250'/420kts with a map in my hand or navigating an ageing 737-200 across the Atlantic to the Canaries on DR. Nowadays, we sail across the world with little thought as to how.
I have constantly argued for LESS automation and making the pilots do more. Yes, I love the modern FMS/GPS/magenta line stuff, but I know that lots of modern youngsters do not have a clue where they are and where they are actually going a lot of the time - indeed why should they? Why should they worry about speed when the aircraft will look after it for them? Why worry about stall recovery because the aircraft will NOT let you stall?
I firmly maintain that with the current state of the art in avionics, software writing skills and equipment we are going the
wrong way in both design and training, and Schipol and Perpignan sadly re-inforce that view.