>>Wrong. When everything goes perfectly, a computer can handle the job. There are situations, though, that require the skill of the pilot <<
No probably not — a human could take over remotely. The pilot is just a redundant backup system to make people feel good. His role is more administrative than anything.
NTSB simulations of the Airbus A320 (the Sullenberger flight) landing at either of two local airports resulted in survivable landings eight out of 15 times. Sullenberger landed the plane in the Hudson, and the passengers survived. Some have said that he made the wrong decision, but it sounds like the survivability of an automated landing was essentially a coin flip.
Have you ever flown or do you know any pilots? These systems are not fool-proofed and the last thing you would want is a connectivity issue when trying to take over remotely.
There are a number of high-profile situations that have happened in recent memory where the computers would have crashed the planes were it not for pilots onboard to override commands. The most recent that comes to mind is when a rudder was locked into the full side position. Overcoming that scenario is not something that was possible from a remote location because even the pilots onboard didn't know the extent of the problem. The only thing they could do was work to counter the forces... especially at landing.
There are any number of scenarios that come up during routine flights that require hands-on trained pilots to navigate and trouble-shoot.
I find your faith in technology disturbing...