I'm not 'pushing' anything. The trend has been to improve automation. In another generation they may well be there. What this accident has done is to increase the impetus to design the human element out of the system since in several incidents it has shown that occasionally, it cannot match up to the automation. If it doesn't work as a final protection when it is rarely needed, what is the point of having it there in the first place? I was angry when I read Learmount's article, but by the end of it, I had to concede he does have a point.
Quite the opposite Rainboe !
No crew in that aircraft and automation brings it down all the same.
That crew also failed but how many crews would have properly intervened.
I believe every single day pilots take over automation but as they do nobody hear about it.
The answer is not by keeping the pilots out the cockpit but by limiting the level of automation and by
proper and regular training.