DC-ATE;
The "non-moving thrust levers" seem to be a problem for you and yet the DC8-40 series did not have moving throttles. If I recall (been a long time but I have the manuals somewhere), no DC8 had moving throttles except when they were engaged in a "quasi" speed mode during an "auto" approach, which, I think you'll agree, was a very ropey experience at best especially on the short '8's. Not sure of the 707 but someone here will know and can tell us. I flew it on the Atlantic for a number of years and we were always, always tweaking the EPRs in response to mild speed excursions, (wave action, temperature changes and of course, weight changes).
The non-moving thrust levers on the bus are a non-issue. Those who are most vocal about it haven't flown the airplane or if they have, not for long. It just isn't an issue for experienced crews and neither is the fbw.
Habsheim isn't relevant and the many conspiracy theories are nonsense. You yourself know what acceleration capability to expect of a turbine engine at idle thrust and an angle of attack of 15deg with energy rapidly reducing and the airplane at 30ft above ground. It wasn't computers, fbw or a nefarious cabal of Airbus executives and designers that "explain" Habsheim - it is Newton, in 1687.
Also, the steam gauges on the early '8's and 727's such as the three-pointer altimeter killed a lot of people before they realized that design could be easily misread. A CFIT accident today is almost always human error, SOPs, training or culture.
I loved the DC8 - beautiful airplane which rewarded a fine hand (and equally rewarded a poor hand!), but I'll take the 320/340 series any day - it's simply a far, far better design, and the next one, (787?) will be that much better.
As for pilots losing flying ability and SA? That's a cockpit discipline, experience and a training issue, (and perhaps a hiring and safety culture issue), not an ergonomic/human factors issue. I would even suggest that it is a professional matter if one is uncomfortable hand-flying an airplane but does nothing about it.
If the airplane was as difficult or obscure to fly and operate as you and others claim, the accident rate would reflect it.
I've read all the posts and I tend to believe there is an autothrottle issue here coupled with a high-workload cockpit but I remain open to fuel issues. As for how it hit the ground, its absolutely immaterial and discussion/argument about how it did is irrelevant bordering at times on the morbid, and a diversion for those too impatient to wait for the recorders to be read.
Last edited by PJ2; 27th Feb 2009 at 05:41.