[nernst]

My understanding of the Asiana crash was that the autopilot would have landed the plane fine, and that it was the humans turning it off that caused the problem.

Your point is still valid, but perhaps we approach a time when over-reliance is better than all but the best human pilots (Sully, perhaps).

[neurotech1]

The Asiana pilots were not able to fly a coupled (automatic) landing due to the ILS glideslope being out of service.

The pilots were under the misguided impression that the aircraft would automatically spool-up the engines if the aircraft became to slow. This was a safety feature that didn't engage for a obscure technical reason. Even with a manual visual approach the pilot can still use the autothrust for landing.

A more rigorously trained pilot (eg. Capt. Sully) would have aborted the approach and performed an immediate go-around if he got below the glidepath (or too slow) below a certain altitude (eg. 400ft Above Ground Level).

The rules requiring a go-around (or missed approach) apply for a fully automated approach and landing, just as much as manually flown approach and landing.

[AceyMan]

The Air France 447 accident is a better fitting example of pitfalls that may obtain in complex "humans-with-automation" types of systems.

There, automation lowered both the standard for situational awareness and fundamental stick and rudder skills. Then, when a quirky corner case happened, the pilots did all manner of wrong on the problem: so much so, they amplified a condition from "mostly harmless" to fatal for all.

Vanity Fair has a nice piece on this accident that's easy to dig up. Good read.

[emp_zealoth]

I heard it was the Airbus weirdness of steering setup that noticeably added to the problems (Separate, disjointed joysticks) One pilot pulled up as hard as he could while the other one thought he was pushing down, making the confusion this much worse