Agreed. What is essential is education of the policymakers, education of the public, and perhaps lobbying about the dangers and unintended consequences of automation and unrealistic working conditions. Anywhere a business can save money, it will.

You may just say, "well, what do you know, you're a doctor," but that is not the best attitude to promote changes. Getting outsiders to understand your cause is the key to lobbying success. I often have to justify my *medical necessity* of a procedure to a 28 year old MBA graduate (had to do this just two weeks ago.) I was more than slightly miffed, but often those outside your industry (MBAs in both our cases, insurance companies in mine, politicians in all of ours) control the industry. Having an ability to communicate the plight is much better than a "us versus them" attitude.

??? what... the... heck?

Perhaps the internet loses some nuance of expression, but there were no "digs" intended whatsover in my post. I fly a 172 purely for fun, never claim to do otherwise. I spend a lot of money to do so, and recognize that it is a huge privilege.

I assume you thought I was trying to say that cargo operators are any less of pilots than passenger pilots?? I really wasn't. All saying is that if there are no people on a plane, a malfunction for *whatever* reason may mean less lives lost (yes, of course there are big caveats with that.) Perhaps I stepped on a hotbutton issue in the pro pilot community, and for that I sincerely apologize, but please don't assume that posters have any ill will.