I'm in support of reopening this question (I don't agree it should be closed at the first place). The author proposed an interesting solution to a problem. While some answers in other questions are relevant, I don't believe the exact question has been addressed. Thus the author has a valid point (and I'm quite sure he did a quite throughout analysis) in his proposed solution. The problem is that his assumptions (and his understanding of piloting an aircraft in general) are wrong.
The other questions discuss why automation and computers cannot address the problem. The OP's point, if I understand it correctly, is that the power (and knowledge) of computers has not been utilized to their full potential. If a missing data can be interpreted from other parameters by investigators in the post-accident analysis, then sure the onboard computers already had all the information needed to compute that data. The OP's proposal is like, if there are 6 variables in a formula that doesn't add up, and you find out taking out 1 variable and estimating that from the other 5 makes sense, then quite certain we've identified the error variable here.
The question itself may be a bit board, but the way I see it, not a duplicate.