Faire
I think you are embarrassing yourself.
Go read up on the accident.
One of us is making a of themselves here, and the fact that the people on here that disagree with everything I'm saying don't think that the AF447 is a good example to press their case should point you in the direction of who that might be....
I am well read on AF447 thank you.
Your solution is to provide additional data sources for the automatics, and give 100% authority to the automation and proclaim that this will be safer.
However, you are not comparing like with like.
The automation of the A330 in AF447 was incapable of dealing with the scenario it found itself in. That is a fact, even if seems some posters here don't understand that. The A330 automatics were completely incapable of dealing with the circumstances.
To support you argument for pilotless aircraft you must deal with the likes of AF447. Your solution is to provide more data (you mention accelerometers in mobile phones, as an example, apparently unaware of similar technology in the ADIRUs) and on this basis you proclaim your pilotless aircraft will be safer that an aircraft with a pilot.
But data from additional technology would also aid any human pilot as well and so improve their safety records. Thus you can't fairly compare the performance of pilots - without your additional data - and future automation - with your additional data -.
Hence the safety argument is spurious.