"Jose" wrote

Fine. Don't respond to him.

Why not? Why is he above being taken to task for his comments towards others?
Why are you defending him?

But to take a statement that is =not= "utter rubbish" and call it that does
disservice to the statement, and those reading it.

Once again, that which you have judged to be "=not= utter rubish" is total
rubbish to others, or they would not be attacking the statement. Why are you
defending him?

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".

Your point of view, only. Don't decide for me what is misleading, and the
extent that it is misleading, and what is rubbish and what is not.

Ignore a post you wish to ignore.

Once again, why? Why should we ignore posts that we feel are out of line? Why
are you defending him?

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

And you are now the judge of what is "careful and correct." What a hoot!

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.

Autopilots were not the subject being discussed. FADEC failure, and modes of
FADEC failure. That is the subject, not pilot error, and certainly not pilot
controlled systems. Try to keep up.
--
Jim in NC