There is a lot of misunderstanding of the challenges here.
The BA 777 running out of engine is not an instance of where the human is better.
That is an example of where a computer would have the advantage.
No human has practiced glide approaches in a 777, whereas programing the physics into a computer is easy.
It can real time monitor the approach, and fly the perfect AoA without difficulty.
It can know the effect a flap raise will have.
Just like you cant match an autopilot for normal flight, you can't match it for abnormal flight.
The Sully case is another on.
The computer would not be trying to guess whether he could make the runway. It would know. It is very simple physics for the computer.
People are trying to make out that the computer has to be perfect.
It doesn't.
It merely has to be better than we are at present.
There will be black swan events, and that is where a good crew might be better, but the vast majority of events are endless repeats of accidents ad infinitum.
We are currently in a bad transitional phase.
An Example.
TCAS
The aircraft tells us what to do.
We are not supposed to second guess it, just do what it says.
We then try to do what it says but usually get it wrong. The aircraft itself would never ever got the response wrong.
EGPWS
Again, simply connecting these systems to the autopilot would make them a lot safer.
Those who say that the sensors will never match the human eye are talking utter rubbish.
1. The pilots barely look out the window.
2. We fly blind in IMC all the time.
3.If anyone actually thought that lookout was important, we would have cockpits like fighters that you could actually see out of.
4. Modern fighters already have integrated systems far better at spotting other aircraft.