Hi Tourist,
You must be really confused. You said in post #158
"By contrast, the tech knowledge required for the Airbus CBT is more like "the ladybird book of planes"
The fact that Airbus manage to be incredibly safe under these circumstances make me think that it is deliberate policy and not degradation of standards that has led to this.
The manufacturers believe that knowledge will lead to thinking instead of performing like automatons in the event of abnormal events. (They may well be correct that modern aircraft are just too complex for us to understand enough for us to make good decisions under pressure.)
They would rather you just did what the ECAM says, in effect performing as the avatar for the computer.
Under these circumstances humans are really just error vectors.
Unable to help situations, but able to hinder.
I say remove the vector."
Then you say,
"Referring to Airbus aircraft as proof that we will always need pilots is fallacious since they were designed to need pilots."
So are they designed to need pilots?
Do you want to remove the "vector"?
Make up your mind.