Alf - many thanks for your time and effort in a well-thought out post.
I think the core of your post can be summed up in the word 'airmanship' you use. I too believe strongly in the capability of the human brian to reason its way through an unexpected situation, often with success where 'systems' would fail. I recall the period in BA when we were informed that the word 'airmanship' was not to be used, as the great god DODAR was the correct expression. With that thoughtless directive died a lot of 'airmanship'. I always remember one of my first QFIs telling me that 'airmanship was the ability to avoid a situation where you have to use airmanship'
As you accurately put it, there is a lack of emphasis/motivation/direction/incentive - call it what you will - to encourage new pilots to improve their skills as I feel we were brought up to do. Reliance on the 'magenta line' is encouraged to the point that when it fails, they are effectively confused, if not lost. Many times I have said "young man/woman - look at this solution to the situation" to be met by a puzzled "why should I bother" look?
I think the most appropriate paragraph of yours is
"We have yet to learn to live with ‘aviation’ technology – we have to change, but in this change there may be more hazards. Combating these aspect requires thought and analysis – basic thinking.
For all of the human weaknesses, the human is still a powerful defensive aid – we can identify problems and deduce solutions. Do we teach pilots to think in these ways and adequately train them for the range of critical situations (stress, time dependent) which might be encountered?
Thus this problem is not only about technology, but the process of how to think – situation awareness, decision making – full circle back to airmanship, including skills and personal standards."
I too think we have way to go in embracing the new technology - it is STILL outstripping us as it was in the early A320 days.