Can anyone explain the logic of designing an aircraft with software that allows one engine to be in full reverse and the other in TOGA power at the same time? Is there a concievable scenario where one would need this condition?
I believe this is the key question. There is no logic which would support such a condition. AB should just fix it. They are going to get sued anyway, everybody does when something like this this happens. So just fix it.
But I think another several other posts that spoke of a "culture" developing around each manufacturer is spot on. It appears in the case of AB, the culture includes a belief that the software will not allow the aircraft to fly outside the envelope, which is probably true if you understand each and every mode, AND you understand the effects changing things within a mode will have on the overall logic. The problem is that this creates a chess game in your head, and when you have a severe time contraint thrown in for good measure, you are suddenly in multi-tasking overload. You also can't believe that the "culture" would let you down, and you continue to try to depend on it even as you run out of runway. The "logic" of the software logic letting you down just does not compute.
How many of us spend time wondering what the hell our computer is doing at times? (especially in a Windows environment
). When you allow for so many possible combinations, you will automaticaly introduce confusion. One merely has to look at the nearly 1000 posts in this thread to see the amount of confusion involved here. And I know that some of you get it and understand it, but obviously many do not. And I am not talking about the posts from non pilots. Even the posts from A320 pilots have been contradictory. This type of confusion is so common in computer based technology. But in a critical phase of the flight, complete understanding is a must.
No, I am not a pilot. But with over 30 years in the IT industry, I do know end user interfaces. Throughout all of technology, the biggest challenge for us has been how to offer more capability without confusing the end user. Just look at your television remote, or your cell phone. How many of us understand EVERY function? The bottom line is, the more complicated you make the logic, the more difficult you make it for the average user to understand all of the implicaitons of their actions, which will add additional time into the decision making process. And when you have 19 seconds to figure it out, the odds are not good.
So back to the quote I placed at the top. I am sure no pilot would believe that an aircraft software system would attempt to place one engine in TOGA mode while he was attempting to land and reversing the other engine. The thought would never enter his head. The logic fails, the culture prevents one from accepting that fact, and the results are self evident.