bearfoil
"It is at this precise moment when the "generic" computer uncouples the poor performers, steps in and performs its work with an expectation (statistically) of nearly certain success, even in emergency conditions. Or vice versa."
I understand what you are saying but I don't agree. Once you introduce a human being into the cockpit you introduce the certainty, sooner or later, of human error. It's superficially appealing to think that man and machine can coexist on the flight deck in a "best of both worlds" mode but the question remains if that best of both worlds mode is really safer than the pure robotic alternative.
I don't know the answer to that question. It may be that in the long-run the threat of terrorists getting access to the controls, the ever changing weather, and other such risks means that an airplane without a human pilot just isn't as safe as one with a human pilot, even after accounting for human error. What I do know is that when I look back at the last three or four decades and see how automation has improved flight safety I think that those who favor complete automation of flight have earned the opportunity to demonstrate what they can do.
Looking at the distant past tells us what flight looked like without computer automation. Looking at the recent past and the present tells us what flight looks like with both computer and man on the flight deck. A rational person would want to know what the third alternative looks like--pure automated flight--before passing judgment on the matter as to which of the three choices is actually safer.