> The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators
The problem is when the data sources fail, like in AF447.
Or when you have people crashing an airplane in perfect weather, like Asiana Airlines 214 in San Francisco
Yes, automation makes things easier, but they fail eventually. And when it fails you have to fly it manually (or with a lower level of automation). But some modern pilots are incapable of doing that.
What I am saying is that simulation time alone is not good enough. Nor is flying-only time. Both are needed, and for different reasons. Sure, time spent in automation mode in the air is not incredibly useful. But it is reality, and enduring that, only to have to take manual control in a panic after 8 hours of boredom is something I don't see simulators re-reproducing very well any time soon.
Level of automation you're using has nothing to do with flying on a simulator or an actual plane.
Look at the space program, for example. Extremes of forces and very short windows for decision-making have moved spaceflight in the direction of automation for most mission critical moments. The data that feeds in-flight automation is the same that feeds simulators, so I am not sure where the difference lies in your differentiation between the two.
I can see a point where doing everything by software rather than human is safer and makes the most sense (see the direction Tesla is taking us), and at that point there will be no issue. But that is not the case now.