I'm coming to this late in the game. Already I notice Sully's scenario cropping up in more recent posts where a human made judgements in a unique/extremely highly improbable scenario that automatics could not have catered for. True; and there are others I can think of where it was a human who saved the day after the manure hit the air conditioning, unexpectedly.
RYR into CIA. Short finals bird strike known on 1 engine; PF initiated a G/A, 2nd engine coughed & nearly died. Captain took control and plonked the a/c unceremoniously on the runway. A/C broken, all survived. Any slower thinking system/human would have made a burning hole in Rome.
Transatlantic glider. Human error in maintenance caused the initial problem. Lack of human monitoring compounded it when the 1st error caused a major problem; human skill resolved it. I doubt any automated system would have saved the day.
While it might be true that humans from all links in the chain are the largest numerical cause of incidents/accidents I wonder how many more were avoided by timely human intervention as a preventative force? Automatics, and sadly too often humans, act in only a reactive manner. This constant thinking about the future, what if I do this then what, choice selection at a phenomenal rate based on experience; this is what good human operators can do. Can automatics?