|
tiger,
the use of 'full automation' or 'automation' with regards to the later generation Airbus aicraft, starting with the A320 (which the Yemenia A310 is not), is misleading and wrong.
Warning: the following is a very simplified and abbreviated description of what fly-by wire stands for;
'Full automation' implies that the pilot pushes a button to start the system and then computers take over and do the rest. Far from it. Airbus aircraft allow the pilots to do everything pilots on other types do, with the exception of going outside the flight envelope.
The flight envelope is based on certificated (certified?) values for a number of things and defines limits beyond which the aircraft is not to be taken, otherwise it may suffer structural failure.
For example, assume you have to sharply bank your aircraft (for whatever reason). In a fly-by-wire aircraft, you push the sidestick to the left or right as far as it goes and the aircraft will go to a max bank angle of 35 degrees (if memory serves) and stay there. In a convential aircraft you move the column left or right, but don't know how far you can/should go. Not far enough and you're not avoiding the problem you're trying to avoid, too far and the aircraft may break up.
I agree, sensors and instruments have been known to fail, but this is not an inherent problem with fly-by-wire. It applies to all aircraft.
The auto-pilot function has nothing to do with fly-by-wire.
As to asymetrical controls, talk to a fighter pilot and ask him about the arrangement of throttle and control stick in his cockpit.
How do you know that fly-by-wire was a contributing factor in the AF447 accident?
With thousands of Airbus aircraft being operated today there are thousands times x pilots who have started their career in aviation flying small aircraft or even 'old-style- Boeing types. Theu don't seem to have any problems adjusting to new technology. Maybe the retired pilots you were talking to haven't a clue how an Airbus aircraft works.
|