RE IanW's stack of manuals: I attended a local emergency planning meeting, with fire department, and city, county, and state officialdom. The city manual was 50 pages long. The mayor and I were the only ones who had read it. The manual was all about who is in charge.
I have a very pedestrian 13 ton truck, one you see hundreds of on the road. It won't start. The local motor guru who can in 35 seconds diagnose 95% of all problems of pre-1985 light duty vehicles, plus HIS diesel guru still don't know whats going on after a week and, like a more monetarily restrained version of the truck dealer, have begun throwing dollars at it in hopes something will work. Someone somewhere knows all the troubleshooting SOPs. They don't live here.
I've used simple examples here because complex examples too often become a pack of dogs chasing their tails. If there are no ongoing, systemically encouraged conversations between those who have great knowledge and those who have great experience what you get in the group mind is advancing Alzheimers, in other words, increased relational complexity. Every pilot knows (or should) that all you need to guarantee an accident is too many complexities in too short a time. Eliminating complexities is automation's promise. But the issue here is when automation increases complexity. There aren't any pilots, no matter their training, knowledge, or experience, who are not vulnerable to overwhelm. Some of the arguments that more training would solve everything seem be made by people who haven't yet had the whee squeezed out of them and now know beyond a shadow of a doubt they were saved only because of luck. I have, so I know I don't know everything. That makes me skeptical of arguments like "If you knew what I know", and "If you knew more", unless I know for a fact that that the person had a whee squeezing event where serendipitous luck and not his own abilities clearly saved his bacon.