Originally Posted by
CVividasku
........In this accident, I think contrarily that too much automation is the cause............The pilot should have been made aware that his trim was doing a runaway...............My view is that the responsibility of the pilot does not exonerate the manufacturer from having to provide the pilots with an intuitive, safe aircraft, that won't do anything dangerous unexpectedly and with no information. In short, that is the contrary of MCAS style design. Am I wrong to think so ?
Automation is a fact of airline flying in today's busy airspaces. Going back to less or no automation is simply not going to happen. Pilots must only use the appropriate level of automation for the task, therefore pilots need to be properly trained how to understand and use the automation correctly. This is where a lot of problems seem to be arising. My classmates and I spent about 6 weeks in a classroom being taught about the Airbus FBW aircraft; followed by 4 weeks in the Sim; followed by 6+ weeks line training; followed by our final line check. Does this still happen, or is it a few days in front of a CBT computer before a reduced Sim and reduced line training?
The Airbus THS movement is clearly shown by the two black and white painted trim wheels.
After being type-rated on a number of conventional turboprops and jet transports, I found the Airbus FBW to be very intuitive - as long as you understand how the FBW works and how it helps you. I have observed some pilots who think it is fighting them etc., because they don't understand it.
Airbus FBW is a very good design and well engineered product - an order of magnitude better than what existed before its introduction. Nothing can ever be completely fool proof however, which is why the authorities rightly demand ATPL licences and type ratings - to ensure that aircraft are flown by capable professionals, not fools.