>From the engineering point of view, if it can be automated within the
constraintes of applicable safety and regulatory analysis it probably
will be. Higher levels of automation are a sell feature for both
suppliers (My Goodies do more then Their Goodies; and the airframers My
SuperWhiz Jet is more state of the Art then theirs.)
Automation is also perceived to add value to the Operations end through
more precision (FMS vs hand flying for example). However it is my
opinion that we do it becasue we can, not necessaryly becasue we should.
Things to look for in the future. Power by wire - decentralized
hydraulic systems where the actuators contain an internal selfcontained
hydraulic system (already flying on a C-141 as a demonstration I
believe). ATM over ATN (Air Traffic Management over Aeronatutical
Telecommunications Network). ATC uplinks a <command,request, direction
(chose one:)> and the action taken by the flight crew is relayed back to
ATC as a confirmation. Automatic avionics reconfiguration (to some
extent already available on the 777). Goal is increased aircraft
available by allowing mainenance to be performed at a convenient time
(also known as scheduled unscheduled maintenance :). All these are
possible becasue the technologies are available. Go back 20 years and
ask if they are necessary or desirable? The responce would be
irrelivent because then we did not have the technology, now we do.
Joke is that someday there will not be any flight controls or displays.
Direct neural connection between the aircraft entity and the
pilot/manager. I'd guess about 7 years and we'll see a simple
demonstration. How long before there's a push to move it into use (Yes
Little Grasshopper - Become One with your airplane :) Again, if we can
then we will. It's the engineers way :)
Actually within the engieering community it has another name - creeping
elegance :)
Just my opinions of course.
Brian