Would you care to look at the accident statistics and compare, say, the year on year statistics for jet transport hull losses for the past 40 years.
The implication of what you, and some others, are saying is that aeroplanes are becoming unsafer due to over reliance on automation. Sure there have been losses caused by inappropriate or inadvertent improper use of the automatiion but that is down to poor training, procedures or incompetence, all of which is not the fault of the automation.
Having flown both which would you rather do:
Fly a non-precision approach by hand or using an autopilot in vertical speed and heading mode or
fly a non-precision approach fully automatically in LNAV and VNAV (B777 because that is all I have experience of in doing so)?
So many situations which demanded very high levels of skill and interpretation and, therefore, an increased consequent exposure to possible catastrophic mistakes have reduced due to automation.
I remember being route checked on the B747 on a jumbo out of LAX and during the debrief I was criticised, correctly, for hand flying the aircraft to 10,000' or so meaning I was hugely pre-occupied with that task and had increased the captain's workload dramatically in what is incredibly busy and demanding airspace, not to mention one less pair of eyes able to keep a lookout.
I realise the likes of 411A would be able to fly more accurately while hand flying a non-precision approach and at the same time lecturing his FO about the appalling standards he observes in all other airlines but, as a lesser mortal, I cannot accept the premise that aeroplanes which require a flight engineer are inherently safer.
Edited to add that I have just found this which is raw data and does not take into account the increase in hours flown year on year:
Fatal Airliner Hull losses.