Megan, thanks for the links - I wasn't aware of the A320 one. Of course what none of these reports can say is what would likely happened if there had been no crew intervention at all, and the automated systems just been allowed to continue doing their thing.
Less hair: or if in times of international tension the likes of Putin/Xi simply state that they have and will use the technology to disrupt satellite signals? I’ve said in other threads that a fundamental reason it’s unlikely that uncrewed passenger ops will take place in the foreseeable future is product liability – take the pilots out and you have no flying scapegoat, ALL legal responsibility is transferred to the manufacturer or operator. You have to completely rewrite things like ICAO Annex 2, 2.4: Authority of pilot-in-command of an aircraft. “The pilot-in-command of an aircraft shall have final authority as to the disposition of the aircraft while in command.”
The philosophical question is this. The industry can say “we have a 100% (not 99.9999999%) guarantee that we can take care of ALL CONCEIVABLE combinations of failures using neural network AI”. Are there INconceivable failures of mechanical parts, software coding and environmental aspects? How do you deal with that? They seem to have occurred in quite a few events.
And to deal with loss of comms for some reason – easily conceivable - all this stuff has to be on board each aircraft. The presence of (a) pilot or pilots provides the only totally independent intelligence able to make an attempt (not guaranteed successful) to deal with an inconceivable combination of events. When the detailed “terms and conditions” are written by the manufacturers lawyers, the operators lawyers are going to say “no way”!