Most pilots are probably not going to land you on the Hudson either. A computer designed to perform emergency landings may actually do better. It can instantl

Most pilots are probably not going to land you on the Hudson either. A computer designed to perform emergency landings may actually do better. It can instantly decide if a high bank angle turn will work. It can carry mapping data to identify possible landing locations and places to avoid crashing (like areas with higher population density). It could design an approach and fly it using GPS. It could use transponder data to land near vessels that could assist. You could even have published procedures for dual engine failure. In certain situations humans do not respond in an ideal way. They are bad at deadling with conflicting information. And will often make poor choices when faced with an emergency. A suitably designed automation may well do better in those situations. And a lot of accidents now are exactly those kind of situations. They are survivable incidents where the pilot fails to take the correct action. I don't think we should give emergency control to autopilots just yet. But the scientific problem it poses is worth tackling. How do you deal with possibly conflicting information and be sure that the reported situation and plan is correct. That is the problem that underlies a lot of challenges (like ATC, IFR navigation, search and rescue, routing drones, even command during a war). You have a set of data from the machine, recorded data about the external world, data from other machines and control, rules about expected behaviour, mapping data, model outputs, weather information. And that all has to be tested, fused together and then acted upon.