Peter Duniho wrote:
"george" wrote in message
ups.com...
No. Pilot experience good 1.5 million lines of code bad..

Based on what? You have an opinion, not proof.

Based on over 20 years experience with computors and computorised
systems

Accident inspectors start off with the 'pilot error' scenario.

That's because so many accidents are caused by pilot error.

I do not know why you have this bias against pilots.
Are you envious?

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.

So what? First of all, "many pilots" don't actually have the same
information that the accident inspector is working with. They are "aware"
of something based on their uninformed opinion.

Read -very- carefully what I wrote and not what you have interpreted as
being what I wrote.

I have one incident that the Accident Report claimed pilot error.
The second enquiry negated the first on -new- engineering evidence

Secondly, that position assumes that every accident attributed to something
OTHER than pilot error was correctly assessed. If inspectors are making
mistakes, they could just as easily make a mistake that would incorrectly
fail to blame pilot error.

Saying the one happens but not the other shows a pretty blatant bias.

Pilots learn from air accident reports.

How do they do that if the reports are, as you appear to claim, incorrect?

Ahah. now you're getting it. See that wasn't hard was it....

If the examining body is seen to have an agenda any good work they do
will always be doubted .

What's that got to do with computer-piloted aircraft?

There you go again reading your own idea of some-one elses post