The implementation of automation in many domains has led to well-documented accidents and incidents, resulting from reduced situation awareness that occurs when operators are out-of-loop (OOTL), automation confusion, and automation interaction difficulties. Wickens coined the term lumberjack effect to summarize the finding that while automation works well most of the time in typical or normal situations, the performance problems that occur in novel or unexpected situations also increase the likelihood of catastrophic errors. Skraaning and Jamieson have criticized the lumberjack effect due to a study in which they failed to find it. I show that this claim is unsupported due to a number of methodological limitations in their study and conceptual errors. They also provide a model of automation failure that fails to clearly delineate the many barriers to accidents that are available, instead emphasizing the ways in which automation can fail technically and different types of human error. An alternate automation failure model is presented that provides a broader socio-technical perspective emphasizing the design features, processes, capabilities, organizational policies, and training that support people in improving system safety when automation fails.