The title, and therefore the whole argument of this thread is too -and by far - simplistic.
It should be about whether or not
automation is necessary in our flight decks...and that's going very far back in time.
The main gripe of those arguing about FBW is the "out-of-the-loop" pilot discussion, but it is not a new one : with the big jets era, we've seen a lot of automated systems that were quite acceptable although they took a lot away from the guy in the nose ; to cite a few :
- Anti skid brakes
- Yaw dampers
- Air / Ground sensors allowing a config generated permission for brakes, steering, reversers...etc...
- Electronic auto-pilots and CWS modes allowing easier handling (the DC-10 uses it a lot)
.......
As for the engines, may I just remind the younger ones that the original 747 engine was so sensitive to throttle variations that they needed to be restrained in flight ?
All these systems, as I said have been quite welcomed by the pilot profession : A Mach trim acts without any pilot intervention but it was pretty important...so was the yaw damper...and no one questioned the usefulness of an antiskid although one could have one's foot to the pedal stop with not a single psi going to the brake cylinder ...
Were these protections a necessity ?
Well, just have a look at the AC DC-8 in Toronto when the crew thought wise to deploy the [b]ground spoilers/b] on landing....109 fatalities...
A quick research on the various accident data bases will show that cables and pullies were not that safe.
Now came the 320 and its followers along and aviation became another proposal altogether and the opponents became a lot more vocal (That thing is going to take away our skills...we're now truly out of the loop...)
Yeah ! Sure !
But people have a rather short memories : the so-called "hard limits" they were so against would have saved quite a few lives ; just two instances :
- EAL DC-8 on a degraded stability in turbulence just after take-off...58 fatalities (25/2/64)
- JAL DC-8 in Moscow, with a "supercritical AoA" ... 61 fatalities (28/11/72)
One of the arguments for FBW is weight and cost. Can't disagree, really. But we've come to a point were the control of most our equipment is so fine, with so few tolerances that a mechanical solution is totally out . I still remember studying the fuel system of a DC-4 engine : valves here, valves there, a baro tube pushing a membrane which in turn pushes a rod that actuates the opening of yet another valve...and what did the "poppet valve do ?". They were brilliant pieces of engineering (just have a look of how the constant speed of a propeller was achieved !), but may I just remind you that not one of these marvels could qualify for the shortest ETOPS performance (If I remember well, the most beautiful of these machines, the Connie was also called "the best Trimotor over the Atlantic").
FBW C* laws are here to stay and I for one welcome them. Mind you, there could still be some gremlins hanging about in those softwares : One which is well known, and therefore designed into every system is about discrepancies between pilot inputs and response speeds from the controls....studied at length at Airbus Industries but they couldn't envisage the coupling that they got on the Bilbao incident (problem now solved).
On the other hand, I can't help but feel a bit sad that an accident that would have been avoided on a FBW equipped airliner happened on an MD-80 on August 16, 2005 with the loss of all aboard.
Just my two euro cents.