bburks
A nice approach to the problem and a good analysis.
But, without wanting to belittle the effort, after almost 3 decades in civil aviation, I could have come up with something very close in 30 seconds. Almost any postholder safety in any airline will have also come up with the same conclusion, remedies and will have faced a sympathetic head waggle by his superiors, just to have all the good ideas scrapped due to lack of funds due to the cutthroat competition who has just cut their own new safety departement's good ideas due to lack of .... etc. etc.
It's not the awareness of the situation, it's the willingness to takle it that is the main problem. As long as you can get away with less action and more profit, it will be done.
One huge cost saver has traditionally been the FFS. To a certain extent it has brought in some improvement of training, but it has perverted into the belief, that you can train everything in it. Zero flight time on type on a first commercial flight is not uncommon today, approved SIM time replacing it. Training upsets in a simulator is only half of the truth. The noises and environement are not the same, the G-loads are not the same and all too many times we conclude "oh, that was a sim glitch", "in the real plane you would have done better" ... and the box gets ticked.
Nothing replaces the real thing! Too much hands-on-the-biest-training has been taken away, too much restrictions on hand-flying is imposed.
A second huge cost saver is the more serious threat: CBT. Computer based training can make up to almost an entire technical and aerodynamical training on certain syllabi. The remaining minuscule classroom lessons are given by nice ground instructors. That helps in certain ways, if they are really competent (?), but we are lacking the exchange of knowledge in the good old way the homo sapiens is designed to learn: By beeing tought face to face by someone who has the experience, who has seen it before. Not by a synthetic voice that can be skipped, not by a computer that has only the one sided database, dumbly repeating software or programming errors.
Again, nothing replaces the direct transfer of knowledge, the real thing strait from the horses mouth.
At many airlines we see very discrete fig leaf efforts to regain a bit of flying skills by implementing FFS manual sim sessions (from above you may derive what chance i would give such plans). No wonder mostly old dogs perform better than the more recent pilots. Not necesseraly because they have more experience (that might even be a negative sometimes due complacency or own made up procedures), but mainly because they received a much broader training and aviation education at the beginning of their carreer. The young generation is simply deprived of such and there looms the danger!
bburks, the most stringent part of your efforts must be the convincing of the whole industry (manufacturors, airline managers and the regulators) to go back to REAL training and cut back on synthetic training. It will be more expensive though.
Therefore I may cite Leslie Nielsen: " I wish you all the luck in the world ".