3 ms·

But this isn't what the article is asserting. They are not saying the autopilot couldn't be overridden. The article is saying that it appears that while flying

But this isn't what the article is asserting. They are not saying the autopilot couldn't be overridden. The article is saying that it appears that while flying into a very bad storm the pilots disengaged the AP and attempted to make an emergency, beyond-limits, turn, which the plane 'allowed', and then at some point after that the disaster struck (structural failure, for example). Whatever happened, did so before (presumably very busy) pilots could radio anything. The article possible alludes to maybe pilots used to making very small changes to the very capable AP might loose their skills over time, but that's like saying cruise control does the same to drivers (and it might, I have no idea)

ilitirit 17y ago
I didn't get that from the article. From what I understood, the point he was making was that the AP systematically relinquishes control of the plane as conditions deteroriate. By the time human pilots get hold of the plane, the conditions are for too difficult for them to handle. My issue with the article is the implications he makes. He compares the Boeing to the Airbus and then talks about the philosophy behind the Airbus. As I replied to sweetdreams, his statements about the plane (eg. Who's in charge here?) are misleading. It's as if he's saying that pilots are in full control of Boeing, but not in an Airbus.