RetiredF4
There is an accepted methodology in scientific debate.
You put forward an idea.
You say why you think it and try to put forward evidence to support it, either experimental or references.
An example.
You say "why has nobody invented a system that cuts in when the sh1t hits the fan?"
You put forward no evidence to support this, however in the spirit of debate...
I say...
NASA-Pioneered Automatic Ground-Collision Avoidance System Operational | NASA
This is where you should come in and either say "oh I'm terribly sorry, I'll do some research in future before making statements" or find some alternative evidence to support your belief.
Or you could just move on and not register your mistake ....
The Air France example and others like it do not help your case. That aircraft was designed that the failure mode is to hand it to the pilot. As has been stated repeatedly, if you were pilotless you would have another option. It just so happens that pitch and power would be more than enough.
Piltdown
I don't disagree with anything you say, except that I think it will be done in the next 20yrs, and since I'm not the one who will be making billions from it, I respectfully decline the offer to speak to grieving relatives.