Originally Posted by
SalNichols
As an aerospace engineer and manager, I'm not sure what is scarier: automated systems that are so complex that no one understands their decision logic; automated systems that may not be completely reliable if modes selected are inappropriate for the flight regime...
As a software engineer (albeit not aero/realtime) whose degree course included several modules where civil FBW specification, design and testing were examined in detail*, I can tell you that your first point is invariably a misconception brought about by misunderstandings and stereotyping - in fact both automation/flight management tools and FBW systems were and are designed to be as transparent as possible, with pilot engineers having final sign-off on the latter. Of course mistakes are made and assumptions proven wrong - but that's true of any engineering discipline you care to name. As someone quite rightly said earlier, the technologies are flight *aids* and nothing more. Just as the wonderfully powerful CAD/design packages make the process of aero engineering far smoother, but don't allow a designer to ignore or forget the basic principles of aerodynamics, materials, loads etc.
Also, inappropriate modes for certain phases of flight long pre-date digital technology in the flight deck.
* - and as an aviation nerd, I couldn't help but continue to follow up and maintain an interest in the following years!
Originally Posted by
IcePack
I wonder if this will be part of the NTSB repot?
But then that would show the FAA & other authorities in a bad light, so proberbly not.
Hmm... In fact, the NTSB is one of the few big-name investigation agencies that pulls no punches when it comes to holding the regulator to account. Civil service agencies like our own AAIB tend to be more matter-of-fact.
@fourgolds - Most of the reports I've read so far indicate that his previous type was the B744.
@GobOnAStick - While even seasoned journalists are decrying the decline in standards of their profession in today's hyper-commercial world, I don't think I'd go as far as to tar all of them with the idiot brush. That said, due to the specialised nature of the technical side of aviation reporters do tend to make glaring errors more often than not.