As regards changing procedures at SFO. I do not think it is necessary. Thousands of approaches were flown before this without accidents and thousands of approaches will be flown after this without accident.
And as several have explained, it is the pilots job to override the automation if needed and fly the plane.
And an inexperienced crew should not be flying 300 people around
I've followed this entire thread, and I've read every post. These three points become painfully clear.
So many people have disagreed, usually allowing for pilot fatigue or a lack of hands-on skill. But, when I buy a ticket to fly, what I DON'T see in the fine print is the following:
"The ticket purchaser agrees that flying an airplane is demanding work, and crews may be fatigued or may lack the ability to manage the aircraft without anticipated computer assistance. Therefore our passengers are reminded that, from time to time, aircraft may stall and crash into the Atlantic Ocean or smash up whilst landing on a bright sunny day in San Fransisco. Should you be on such a flight, and should you thusly be killed or mangled, or should your spouse, parents, or children thusly be killed or mangled, we ask you to bear with us. Thank you for your understanding in this matter."
I think apologists should ask themselves whether such a caveat would seem quite okay and reasonable. Maybe in bright red, on their ticket.
Similarly, other professionals, from your friendly brake-repairman to your surgeon, might also like you to be so understanding. They, too, might be tired or new at the job.