Peter Duniho wrote:
"george" wrote in message
oups.com...
The trouble is that you never hear of the thousands of 'pilot skill'
saves a year.

You also never hear of the thousands of "pilot skill" failures that require
"pilot skill" saves, either. So what?

And in an accident the first claim by the accident inspectors is that
it's 'pilot error' and, sadly, they can maintain that position in
spite of other factors.

Yes, it IS unfortunate that so many accidents turn out to be attributable to
"pilot error", and that in spite of other factors, the inspectors CAN still
attribute the accidents to "pilot error". Seems to me you're just making
the point that more automation would be good.

No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..
Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.
Many pilots are aware of incidents in their own countries and at their
own airfields where accident inspectors get it wrong and the civil
aviation body of that country maintain the fiction.
Pilots learn from air accident reports.
If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .