I agree it will take a long time to develop automated systems that can be trusted. It took 26 years for tech to develop from the first ILS assisted passenger landing to the first fully automated ILS landing.
If you were to take this specific speed sensor issue, I'm more concerned there aren't different types of systems being used to try to cross-validate the numbers. The pitot-static system has its own backup on the plane, but if there is an inherent weakness of that particular system (e.g. ice), there is no other way to measure speed that is not susceptible to icing. Surely that particular problem is within our reach, no?
To measure airspeed I guess something has to have air flowing through it or past it, and that something would be susceptible to icing. That said, current pitot have very good ice protection, and AF447 was an extreme example with a known problematic type that Air France were in the process of exchanging.
Perhaps GPS ground speed data with previous wind estimates could at least help with establishing that "something must be wrong with the airspeeds".
Something scary from a Boeing pilot in the comments:
Loss of all airspeed indications is not something we train
for. It's always assumed in transport category aircraft
that redundancies built in will always give us at least
attitude, heading, and airspeed.
There are meterological radars that use doppler shift to measure wind speed, I wonder if you could use the same basic idea to construct a radar airspeed indicator?
If you were to take this specific speed sensor issue, I'm more concerned there aren't different types of systems being used to try to cross-validate the numbers. The pitot-static system has its own backup on the plane, but if there is an inherent weakness of that particular system (e.g. ice), there is no other way to measure speed that is not susceptible to icing. Surely that particular problem is within our reach, no?