funfly;
Don't shoot me, I am being Devils advocate with these questions in order to suggest alternatives - we seem to be stuck on 'real pilots are better' & 'bring back the old days'
On the contrary the point you raise is an excellent one. No "Devil's Advocacy" here - what you say is the truth. It is a long acknowledged fact that automation has dramatically reduced industry costs and enhanced flight safety. The weight savings in hydraulics and other mechanical solutions to flight controls and landing gear operation alone on the A320 design were significant. The reliability and accuracy of automation is nothing short of spectacular and is nowhere more beautifully demonstrated than on a Category IIIb ILS autoland approach in RVR600 conditions, (forward visibility 600 feet). The safety factor has increased exponentially too, with automated peripherals such as TCAS II, EGPWS, FANS and ACARS all of which have prevented untold numbers of fatalties. Don Bateman's (of Honeywell) invention, GPWS has prevented untold numbers of CFIT accidents.
In short, automation has been a hugely positive net change for commercial aviation. Computerization has made exponential changes in flight safety in related areas through ATC capabilities, (radar & transponders, predictive tracking) and weather prediction and modelling and disemination of this information rapidly and widely through the internet, (Like many crews could, I used to start my flight planning in the uninterrupted calm of the hotel room some four hours before departure, downloading the flight plan onto the laptop and studying the weather etc). Mechanical and technical reliability of aircraft have made system and engine issues almost a thing of the past. Engine shutdowns are rare compared to the piston era where arriving from an overseas flight on all four was an event.
Aircraft instrumentation accuracy, the introduction of flight management guidance computers, satellite communications all have contributed to reducing vertical, lateral and longitudinal separation standards, putting more airplanes into the sky safely. The introducion of RVSM standards reducing vertical separation from 2000ft above FL290 to 1000ft literally doubled available airspace both domestically and over the ocean.
Automation can mitigate the effects of fatigue because it doesn't get distracted, lose situational awareness or suffer from any of the other very elementary human frailties such as vertigo or fear. Automation is a fine and "loyal" servant, used wisely and intelligently.
Except for the kind of respect that this profession used to (deservedly) garner but has been lost by the processes herein described, the call isn't for a "return" to the old days - not at all. In fact, were we to do that under the watch of present industry leaders and regulators I strongly suspect the accident rate would skyrocket immediately. It's hypothetical however and as such is a meaningless argument - we're not going back.
Automation has one major, huge fault however and we all know what it is. That fault is the subject of the entire thrust behind this dialogue - computers and automation is dumber than a bag of hammers - it is GIGO, all the way down. Automation will fly an airliner smoothly, accurately, beautifully, straight into the ground, (and has) or will, if pilots permit, stall the aircraft, even the Airbus.
The secondary effects of automation is loss of situational awareness and loss of flying and thinking skills. Loss of instrument scan may be a tertiary effect.
This conversation is really about "support" for the best flight safety enhancement the industry has ever had - a skilled, trained and experience airline pilot. That enhancement is the least expensive of all the changes which have occurred to take flight safety where it has gone since the 50's.
"Support" means respect for the capabilities and contributions of a professional airline pilot. "Respect" means paying a wage that one can raise a family on, buy a house on, retire on. You aready know that Captain Sullenberger (and every pilot at US Airways, United and a few other major carriers) don't have pensions even though they paid into them.
Support means training intelligently, effectively, using flight data programs and LOSA information upon which to base curriculae and not just training to pass the ride and tick the box. That requires infrastructure, staffing, and a longer-term vision than quarterly results. That means that some things which do not directly produce "profit" must nevertheless be supported and not be targeted under the constant drive to cut costs where "lack of production" is perceived. I have seen it written and heard it said from the executive levels of airlines, sometimes couched in euphemisms, sometimes not, that pilot augmentation for long-haul operations is merely so much union feather-bedding. An enlightened use of human factors knowledge in combination with the substantial science already available on circadian rhythms, just for starters, is needed. When the FAA comes to actually believe there is need for change, we know that the problem is serious and has been for decades and decades. In Canada, the problem remains unrecognized and undiscussed except among flight safety groups and advocates. Despite their words on flight safety, IATA has in the past been one of the more vocal groups speaking/lobbying against any changes in flight time and duty day regulations.
Support means acknowledging that, just like other professions, it takes time to grow experience and that one does not just pick such things from trees.
"Experience" means time, but the pipeline is drying up. Young people don't want to be "airline pilots" these days for all the obvious reasons that are both succinctly and clearly expressed here by many, the finest expression coming from Captain Sullenberger before Congress in February.
Young pilots need to be shown how it was and how it ought to be. Ms. Shaw likely never understood the disadvantages of the lack of such support and guidance because to those who are starting out, everything is "normal". Those who have lived the career for some time, know (and knew) better.
This is a tall order which almost certainly will never be filled until industry itself recognizes the problem. At present, there is "no elephant in the living room" and most managements are "satisficed".
We cannot say if loss of control accidents will trend upwards or not. Preventative strategies which produce "nothing" as a successful result, (ie, no incidents, no accidents) are extremely difficult to implement and defend when the MBAs come looking for where to cut costs and especially where the executive levels don't comprehend how flight safety work is done.
Out of experience however, we can say that given fertile ground as described and not just incidental opportunity where the holes line up, untoward trends in aviation will continue and may increase.
These aren't wholesale, massive changes being called for. They are a change in stance - The belief that an airline pilot can be made by giving the candidate 250hrs of simulator and then putting them in the right seat of an A320 or B747 and expecting that the captain will not be alone should something serious occur, is the lack of support being discussed here. It is money, nothing else, that drives this kind of thinking.
So your question is a good one I think. It needs far more examination and discussion than one little posted response. It is at the heart of the important questions, "wither aviation, wither the profession of 'airline pilots', wither flight safety?".