B) is absolutely shameful, that the pilots have no manual control over the GS whatsoever. Just amazing. On a Boeing plane all you had to do was pull the SB all the way back.
I just don't understand what some pilots/contributors/critics want?
They want
more control devolved to the pilot (presumably this means
less "automation"?) yet when the system state is ambiguous, they want it to be able to disambiguate between the possibilities (presumably this means
more "automation"?) ....
Which do you want? More or less?
Do you want the FBW FCS to be more capable or less capable?
Personally, I think it is a very clever system already, which, in the presence of this particular ambiguous state,
did leave ultimate control to the pilot.
(Kind of like when you press the brake and accelerator together in your car...for those of you who are inclined to do such things.)
I don't understand why anyone would think that, in the circumstances a pilot would have been any more inclined to pull a speedbrake lever, than retard a thrust lever?
Cognizant of the fact they were flying an Airbus, with one action, system faults notwithstanding, the machine would have given the pilots all the stopping assistance they needed.
To coin a phrase, "all they had to do" was retard the additional thrust lever.
I don't know why they didn't.
But I do know that I have a job because altimeters don't set themselves, pressurisation panels don't reconfigure themselves, landing gear don't deploy themselves...amongst other things.
Does the fact that some are compaining about the system logic
post accident bother anyone else?