RetiredF4 & airtren, if I wish to be provocative I can argue that AF447 suggests we have gone as far as we can go on transport aircraft which are not fully automated with no humans involved on the flight deck except as special deluxe SLF seats with all its controls disabled, permanently under computer control. That is an "improvement" in the current direction FBW is moving. {o.o}
At least with AF447, data available on the plane, and some improved computers and algorithms the pilots didn't even need to know there was a loss of airspeed indication from all three pitot tubes. There probably are other sorts of incidents that would benefit from a human pilot or two in the cockpit. But, if a rule can be evolved for the humans to follow, wouldn't a computer follow that rule better?
Humans are for when the rule based flying vanishes. But, the sense I get from descriptions of flight training as have floated through this discussion is that it is very very rule based with a lot of if-then-else-endif involved. That is a computer's playground. And on a computer's playground humans do very badly. While you add a three digit number in your head the computer has added millions or billions of them (depending on whether you are autistic or not.)
With that in mind, I am tempted to hand in my indictment for ABI, the airlines, and the regulators for trying to convert humans into computers following rules rather than having the computers follow the same rules with far better instrument scans for instruments the humans don't have a habit of scanning. Rule based actions are not the best use for humans.