so in that light let's not overlook Mxsmanic's *many* insults to
group members, explicit and implied.

Fine. Don't respond to him. But to take a statement that is =not=
"utter rubbish" and call it that does disservice to the statement, and
those reading it. That which =is= utter rubbish should be called that.
But that which is only partly misleading, if it is responded to,
should not be called "utter rubbish".

Ignore a post you wish to ignore. But if one chooses to respond (that
is, after all, a choice), then one should respond carefully and correctly.

Autopilots can hide a developing problem,
sometimes leading to an unpleasant surprise.

It appears that you are describing another form of pilot error.

Yes, it certainly would be a pilot error. But the underlying statement
(which is the reason it would be a pilot error) is still correct.
Autopilots =can= hide a developing problem. It is part of piloting to
ensure that they are not successful in the attempt.

Given that so few accidents can
be charged to the failure of these devices, it may be reaching to claim
that some unreasonable level of danger is presented by their use.

It is "reaching" to claim that. Nonetheless, there is risk. Pointing
that out is not "utter rubbish". It is the reason pilots can't get away
with taking a snooze while George flies.

Jose
--
"There are 3 secrets to the perfect landing. Unfortunately, nobody knows
what they are." - (mike).
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.