SLF,
... the total apparent reliance that is becoming more and more evident.
It is? How so?
... it's readily apparent that the system is both to complex for at least a portion of the user base
Really? Based on what metric? It certainly can't be based on accidents as we had plenty more of those with less complex equipment. To the extent that there's an issue is it not perhaps one of MMI (Man-Machine Interface) "ergonomics" for one and adequate training for another as opposed to the concept of automation in itself?
... it's use is compromising basic skills to some significant measure.
Well, first off, what is the basic skill? Is it not the ability to take the aircraft aloft and return it to the ground safely? If so, our overall skill at doing so has increased, in large part because we use all the aircraft's systems competently, not just the yoke or stick and rudder.
...Instead of automation leading to a net increase ...
But, automation has led to a net increase in the safety of flight operations. The statistics on that are fairly indisputable. There are accidents that include automation or degraded manual skills as a causal factor, but these are far fewer than the accidents that newer technologies have helped us avoid. One telling statistic that you'll never find is a tally of all the "saves" that automation has provided us that resulted in accidents that didn't happen (and consequently you never got to read about).
...Where I disagree with you in your interpretation of "decision making". That is exactly what hand flying is, making decisions. The alternative is observing a computer automatically make those minute corrections for you.
You're not serious are you? The actual motor skills in controlling the aircraft manually are for the most part completely seperate from the decision making functions related to flying. The motor skill is simply one way of translating the decision into action. Sometimes it is the best way (gusty crosswinds and windshears come to mind), but you are doing the same thing when you use the autopilot to achieve the same result. At a guess, for most airline pilots 95% of all the decisions they will make during the course of a flight, including most of the truly critical ones, will occur with the autopilot on. If you believe that manually making those "minute corrections" is the epitomy of pilot decision making then your understanding of the nature of the job is so far removed from mine we might as well be on different planets. On that disparity I can only offer that my perception is informed by many years at the pointy end. How have you come by your conclusions?
If in fact AF447 was an upset at altitude due to the automation reaching a point it kicked out (pure speculation) then would not the lack of hand flying experience at altitude have severely hampered any attempts at recovery by the pilot flying since he had no real experience under such conditions.
This further compounded by a confidence in the automation that encouraged an altitude selection beyond what a hand flying pilot would be comfortable maintaining given the very narrow boundaries?
Pure speculation indeed. As was dealt with in the relevant thread, the altitude selection of the AF aircraft was well within the normal operating boundaries of the aircraft, and not particularly narrow at all. If that in itself was a causal factor then we should be rethinking the entire approach to flying jet aircraft above FL300. Certainly I recall many occasions of being much closer to the edge of the envelope while operating the 727, and on some instances having to hand fly it at those altitudes as well (the "rocker" a/p on old 72's not being the most reliable of beasts). The altitudes we select to fly at are not "encouraged by a confidence in automation" but rather informed by a knowledge of the aircraft's operating envelope along with an appreciation of the environmental characteristics particular to the situation.
At the end of the day how can a competent pilot rely on automation "to little". Nothing can be safer (and yes thats just my opinion) then actually hand flying an airplane. Otherwise lets just equip em all with a little "autosave" box...
Well you know what they say about opinions ...
If you actually believe without qualification that
"Nothing can be safer than actually hand flying an airplane." you have absolutely no business contributing to a professional level discussion about the causes of an aircraft accident. Put simply, you lack an adequate level of appreciation of what the job entails to make an informed contribution.
Automation in place of training and proficiency is going to cause significant issues...just one persons opinion...
In event of emergency break glass, pull lever and sit back and enjoy the ride
You are right in the sense that it isn't automation that's really at issue. The question is what training and what proficiency? My guess is that you and I have fundamentally different answers.
ELAC