What I dont like of the Bus I.

[Strongresolve]

Some of you want a constructive criticism thread. I going to submit this one to talk about some points of the Airbus that dont like me.
This is only my opinion, and I´m writing from the knoledge and unknoledge that I have of the plane.
I will try to be serious and not throw bulls**t

1. Phylosophy.

First of all, I want to talk about the general phylosophy of this craft. There are some points that I want to emphasize.

First, I´m going to try to explain what is the operational loop of an aircraft for me.
The operational loop, is the circle of data, inputs, feedback and reactions around the aircraft flight. Is the circle of information inside and around the aircraft, that set the parameters for a flight, make the systems function and set the pace of futher events or actions. In a conventional plane, the pilot is in the middle of this loop, and can modify the flow at his will in almost any point of the chain.
The pilot has control of all flight parameters, can modify the data of the MCDUs, the course, select with data want to see, and with this new inputs, the aircraft continue it´s flight normally, asimilating data in the loop naturally.
Well, some of you are wondering what this all is about. The Airbus do all this things.
Here is the first diference. In the bus, the pilot appears to be in the middle of it, but I think that this is no true. First of all were are going to remember which words Airbus uses.

Intervention. This is for example, when you put a speed in the FCU. This word means that you are interrupting the flow of the operational loop, setting a new parameter that disrupts it. Normally this is going to be temporally.

Constrain. Normally this is use to set the alttitude and speed limits. But when you are in cruise, and you want to set an exact Mach Number, you only can do it throught an intervention, or a speed Constrain. This is also expected to be temporally.

I think that this two words are important, because they tell us, that we, the pilots, are disrupting flow of the machine. Not just altering it.

Yes, we can set a Cost Index, but do you think that is normal to set the cruise speed related to an index that is a factor between time and fuel consuption. Yes, this is ideal in a free flight scenario where you can let the craft fly at it´s most efficent speed, but not in the long haul routes with clearances that includes fixed Mach Numbers.

Here is another two.

Managed. This mean that the aircraft is taking care of it. This word is a surprise to me, because is related to the business world. And I think that is used by Airbus, because when the aircraft manages something, it is doing it at the top of it´s parameters. It´s the maximum efficiency.
This can be applyed to an speed, to a track, route and an approach (Vertical and laterally.)
Also when you are disrupting tha managing process, tha aircraft see it as an intervention, and it quits from it. I.E. Reverting modes.

Monitor. This is the primary function of the pilot. Monitor the flight. This last word is also important because, when in other aircrafts you are out of the loop an do monitoring of the flight, in the Airbus has another interpretation.

If you seek the loop process of the Bus, you will see that almost all pilot actions doesnt change the flow of the operational loop, you just cut it inserting something strange to the aircraft that he doesnt need or want to be efficient. I.E. The Mach Number Constrain. It also appear in very loud showy colours to catch your attention. MAGENTA.

Ending this first part.

I believe that in this plane the pilot is not in the center of the loop, he is another chain of it. Yes, he is a very important one, but when you touch something, the craft is telling you that dont want it, is telling that if you insert new data or new parameters, the operation is no going to be efficient because you are cutting it.

I think that this is important, because the same aircraft is advise or warning you for messing with it´s operational loop.

Another probe of this are the flight control location, shape and operation. As I said before, they are small, mislocated and no designed to be fully funtional for conventional flying. For emergencies or departures from the flight envelope there is not a FCA switch (Full Control Authority) like some fly by wire, no real feedback, fighter planes. Only an altered Alternate law.
Yes, probably you never would need it, but I appreciate if I´am the last responsible of the flight and I have the switch in the cockpit.
That confirms me that I´m not in the center of the operation, I´m just another big chain.

I think that this is the main cause of the machine-human comunication errors, and this happen in this way, because the real boss of the plane is the company who owns it, and want money from it.
That´s who really is in the center of the loop if there is someone now. Call it the company ghost, or the money making ghost. Because that´s the entity who really tell the aircraft how is going to do the flying.
The Bus is designed for them not for you, the pilot/operator. This is the origin of all bus "illness"

From my point of view, in other aircraft the pilot is the center of the operation, in this one you are probably the biggest part of it. No more.
Change of phylosophy: yes. Like it: No.

Now folks is you turn. I can see the fans of the bus sharpening their knifes. I promise that I will have more raw meat in the future.

I wait your opinions of this physolophycal and metaphorical thread.

All aircraft have their cons, but we are talking now only and about the Bus. No comparations please, just opinions.