Humans are almost exactly what you don't want in a modern cockpit.
We can be very good at things if we have enough practise.
In a modern airliner we so rarely ever get to practise it might as well be never.
We respond badly to dull repetitive tasks.
Airline flying is dull and repetitive.
We respond badly to time zone changes and unsociable hours..
Airline flying is all about the unsociable.
We work well in well rehearsed teams.
All the good SOP stuff can't avoid the fact that we have rarely even met the other guy.
We have a limited capacity for concurrent tasks before we max out.
A modern airliner is spectacularly complex.
Machines don't get tired.
They don't need practise
The love dull
They care not about unsociable.
They don't need to rehearse.
They excel at complex concurrent tasks
I say again.
I don't expect them to be perfect. There will be smoking holes.
They just have to be better than humans, which isn't hard.
People keep mentioning how often they have to make an input.
The first point I will make yet again is that the current crop are designed that way. They expect a human to be there and they use you to make that input.
The second point is a question. How many times is that input just turn it on and off again.
In an Airbus, nearly everything is solved by "leave it alone, it's just having a bad morning" or off then on.
The third of course is why are you judging the future on a really old piece of archaic junk like an Airbus?
Glueball
Read back a few pages.
There is a strong suggestion that the river was not the best option. If that is the case, that is the sort of thing a computer is good at judging. It is just a matter of geometry and speed distance time glide angle calculations. That is where a computer has us totally beaten.
Uplinker.
I don't think you have thought this through.
What do you do in an engine/generator/gear failure/flap jam failure that involves thought? You follow the ECAM. You are not supposed to think. All you currently are is an error waiting to happen as you don't follow the instruction properly or most likely you make a tiny error in the landing distance chart and totally mess up.
The ECAM tells you what to do.
You do it. well done, you must be a pilot.
Yes there are non ECAM procedures, but they are usually just awaiting an ECAM change or outside the current scope of the very old systems to check and monitor.
I'm guessing the fuel imbalance checklist is like the Airbus one and for similar reasons. Don't try to tell me you think that is outside the scope of a computer to run.
Aluminium shuffler
You talk as if I think that current airliners should be left to get airborne by themselves. They shouldn't, they are not designed to.
A line engineer working on 30yr old computer tech will of course say that. Look at your 30 yr old phone/telly/car. It's sh1te.
The world changes fast.
Many flight engineers thought it couldn't happen to them. Where are they now?
Can we please put to bed this "we can't even do driverless trains!" thing.
List of automated urban metro subway systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Is that enough trains running by themselves? I'm not sure that it matters, because it is vastly simpler, practically one dimensional, but here they are..
Cars are inbound at great speed.
Autonomous car - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia