Believe human/machine argumentation shall persist for another decade (if we get such..)
To my simple mindfluff: a schism appears when you consider the Boolean thing: Yes, software Can accommodate lots of what-went-wrong events
--all those 'you' managed to add-to-list just at Final Cut.

Brains gots Reason, that realm which exceeds any 'disaster-planning-made-Boolean' at its core. Problem with your stat (also human-caused, partially)
is that investigators' methodology ends often [in my readings--not encyclopedic] without reporting 'discussions' along the way as led to -->
"must be pilot error; all the machines seemed to be working OK" (whether or not, in the event: they could have been 'aware-of' such a clusterfuck-as-This-one
had not been planned-for in the s/ware.

Moi just amateur in your field of chops, but recall: some certified-Engineers managed to plan rafts of planes wherein the Over-riding-Mondo joystick
for both pilots:was placed out-of-MUTUAL-sight ... by each's thigh, but especially: the Co-chair's.
(Read that crash-report meticulously, maybe you did too?)



Carrion. I concede that Stats do show that: these self-flying /No! we won't let you Do That! aircraft.. are not dropping from the skies with any regularity, last I heard.
So I could be Rong in my assessment; nevertheless: an absence of in-sight TANDEM controls in a cockpit means: I won't fly within your Euro-fabs' creations.
Just ONE event of the now more-than-one cases of a bonkers Copilot means: I side with the already-Dead.