Does that portend a progression to aircraft "commanders" on the ground, handling various aircraft (perhaps in shifts) and still making those 'go' decisions but not from the cockpit. And is that a 'bad' thing in terms of safety?
Anytime an aircraft commander does not have a vested, direct, viscerally palpable, and immediate interest in the inherent risks of a given emergency situation, the safety of the aircraft and the passengers under his or her command, said safety becomes secondary to the technical and very inhuman aspects of efficacy, larger question marks overlooked until the aftermath, enter the lawyers.
All engines out, let’s perhaps minimize loss of life by crashing it on that empty football pitch over there.
Commanders on the ground, as you put it, are potentially nothing more than reasonably well-paid technicians, outsider game players without understanding of any significance. In the extreme, they would pander to the dictates of omni-present bean counters, the task masters who control them, an Orwellian proposition by any standard.
How do you think the Hudson River scenario would have played out, given your proposed remotely controlled automation, without the physical presence of Sullenberger?
If you asked him right now about ground-jockeying an airliner full of passengers, I’m reasonably certain he’d say, “I know a damn goose when I see one”.