A fireman with its phone wants the engine to stop (GSM -> engine).
Is that a better idea?
Anyway, I *agree* with you: first, why not try to do something good with an air gap. Once manufacturers will have demonstrated their ability to design something correct with an air gap, maybe they could be allowed to try to adress more complex configurations.
But you know, that was the way certification authorities approached the issue for airplanes and, apparently, the "non-critical -> critical" issue came back on the table within 2-3 years.
It seems civilian users want to do that. (Maybe users really are the most annoying vulnerability after all...)