Originally Posted by
fizz57
Using a complex, failure-prone system to cure a simply-fixed and rare problem is generally not a good idea - ask Boeing.
Quite apart from the fact that "an accelerometer in the stick" and its certification will cost a lot more than a few bucks (again, ask Boeing), anyone else notice the subliminal messaging going on here?
Honestly, I wasn't going for subtle.
The fact is that every accident or design problem can be fixed, in hindsight, if enough cash is thrown at it. But that certification would have looked cheap if the German-owned plane had augured into a kindergarten. So, figure in the additional costs and embrace the inexpensive new tech and the chance to clear off a ton of human-error potential problems. I am unsure what additional certification cost there would be that it doesn't already have to go through. It's already electronic; add a chip and look for qualitative changes. But, since no one died -this time- no certifying agency is forcing the planes to be grounded until a fix is made. And no one is adding a new requirement for new aircraft to meet.
As it is that stick would already be priced the same a typical used car. Maybe this adds the cost of new floor mats and a full tank of gas.
It's hardly "failure prone" This is what accelerometers do. It's all they do and they are very good at it. What happened with Boeing is they trusted that pilots would catch any trim problems, correct them, and then cut off the problem at the knees. I'm suggesting getting pilots out of the loop entirely - which is the Airbus philosophy. It seems to be working for them and they are entirely electronics and cross-checking.