Tiger Writes:
However have Airbus taken their technology to far, trying to make the pilot a passenger? I do not want to claim any expertise regarding this, as I am only a PPL holder, who is reading for my ATPL exams, so I might be way of the mark, however observations are based on what I have discussed with other pilots, non pilots and read in newspapers.
Lately there have been many tragic and sad headlines for aviation, not only with Airbus, but it seems Airbus headlines are much bigger then the others! It seems Boeings reputation is more solid, it seems someone in the background makes sure the spin gets greater when an Airbus is involved, or am I just paranoid?
I'm not a pilot, and I'm now an infrequent flyer because I no longer travel for business.
I am ex-USAF, and worked communication equipment on C-141, C-5 and KC-135 - all big, beautiful ladies of the sky. An honor to service them.
Airbus has merely followed industry trends: Automate as much as possible, as insurers see automation as being more reliable and consistent than human beings.
Most of the US media is predisposed to banner headlines about Airbus crashes and below-the-fold reporting of Boeing crashes simply because Boeing is a US company. Some call that patriotism.
Both companies build excellent airframes. Any given model and dash-number from either is loaded with idiosyncrasies, but that is the nature of anything so complex.
But...
I would like to *cautiously* say here that Airbus seems to somewhat share the philosophy of the insurance industry regarding human pilot reliability.
More automation = lower chance of error - or should, according to statistics.
I also find it amusing that Airbus has an asymmetrical control layout with regard to the stick: Left chair = left-handed operation, right chair = right-handed operation. That's an example of not enhancing (or ignoring) the man-machine interface, since roughly 82% of the world population is right-handed, including illiterate populations who do not write because they do not have a written language. This layout seems to assume that a human pilot should
never have to perform as smoothly as the automation does.
Of course, until you completely replace the human pilot, the more you take flying the aircraft out of the pilots' hands on a day-to-day basis, the more you allow a pilot's skills to atrophy.
That's where the real problem is.
The bean-counters are about 20 years ahead of the line and the technology.
Compared to a skilled human pilot, automated flight systems are really nothing more than savant toddlers - they can do some things smoothly and more accurately, but lack the judgment required to save the day when things truly turn ugly.
I'm 48 now, and I don't expect to be alive and/or flitting around when fully-automated "pilot-free" flights are commonplace.
I'm fortunate in that respect. No matter how good automation gets, I'll much happier with skilled, happy people at the pointy end - warts and all.
I don't think Airbus will suffer a lasting hit because of the recent events - but I do hope the philosophy there becomes a little more "pilot-centric" than it is now.