Alf5071h
Failures of the man-machine interface, I would use the generic ‘malfunction’ not just failure. The problem-space consists of a combination of technology, human, and situation.
Agree, which points to an issue that was raised in another thread. Some of the pilots pointed out that a lot of their simulator training was spent doing regular procedures with all systems on. Of all the things to train, that's what one needs a simulator for least. Each repitition of those evolutions that you undertake in the daily job reaffirms that pattern through repitition. Apparently, most flights go along nicely with all systems working, thanks to fairly high reliability systems in place today.
So what do you do with that expensive sim time?
You do what you can't do in the aircraft with a load of paying customers, you set up situations that address man and machine interfaces in those situations
where the crew have to make a difference. I'd say that's time better spent in the sim. (Personal bias, I must confess, given how I used to run training sim events all those years ago. Heh, I liked to see 'em sweat!
).
If the computers make things work, you need to work out how they work, and how they don't work. That way, you get the most out of the computers, regardless of how many are, or are not, working.
Well reasoned arguments indicate that the pilot can no longer be expected to fully understand the technical system, nor the designers accommodate the irrationalities of human behaviour or combination of technical failures, and neither, can understand the entirety of complex situations.
I think you are selling pilots a bit short on that score. I do not believe that comprehension of how the bits and pieces fit together is beyond the average professional pilot. Education is a continuum. I firmly believe that pilots get significant job satisfaction from expanding their professional knowledge.