Been thinking about PJ2's analysis of the effect of reliance on automation to replace experienced pilots, which has resulted in at least two aviation disasters. AF, and Colgan. He emphasises that automation is a tool, which enables pilots with experience and judgement to fly even more safely complex aircraft accurately, further enabling air traffic to shoehorn even more aircraft safely into ever busier airspace.
Beancounters love it because new pilots can now fly hands off and brains disengaged, while the automation delivers the cargo/SL or otherwise, safely to the destination on time. Most of the time.
Except that even the finest designs are surprised by events as simple as ice in the pitot tubes, and the responsible guys with the four stripes are suddenly asking "What is it doing now!" and the FO without experience in a panic does exactly the wrong thing. And the design of the sidesticks ensures that the others don't realise he is pulling when he ought to be pushing....meanwhile all the bells, whoops, whistles, overload and distract from the simple and most important information; this aircraft is STALLED.
TOGA is not going to help.
I am sure that pilots have tried to set up this situation in a simulator; how real can it be? when you crash a simulator (I've done that, at Cranebank) the lights go out, they open the door and tell you sorry, chaps, you're dead.
How can new recruits get real stick time? how can hours - thousands of hours sitting in the pointy end letting the computer fly the plane, add up to experience? - Sullenberger was a gliding instructor, and always was thinking ahead in flying his plane, so when the geese were cooked, he was calm and ready and did the right thing, with only seconds to make the decisions. How do we make sure that future professional pilots have this quality?