I guess my feelings are similar to Brad737's.
The autopilot has had a release button for decades. That button is needed for two reasons. One, the autopilot is a system that's not used all the time, so turning it off and on is normal for that sytem. But the second reason for the autopilot release button is because the autopilot can and does fail, and pilots are trained for this and it's practiced in the sim.
Why then should the FBW envelope protection system be without a release button? Granted this system is not cycled off and on the same way as an autopilot, but the system is subject to failure just as an autopilot is. I agree with others that FBW envelope protection is a great innovation and a great system, but why should this particular system be so "sacred" as to not allow the pilot to override it in an emergency? Why should this particular system have a different design philosphy towards possible failure and safety, compared to the autopilot?
Now what I'm about to say, I've withheld from saying for months on these forums looking for a right time to bring it up, and this appears to be the right time.
Is there any connection between the Airbus design philosophy of their FBW systems, and the non-US civil avaition authorities that allow low time pilots in the FOs position?
I'll try my best to articulate what I mean, and the joke about the dog and the pilot might apply here. We all know that some feel that the future of flying is pilotless aircraft. Some argue this future will be safer, and some argue is will be more cost effective.
Is it possible that both considerations (safety and cost) are at work in the Airbus design philosophy, at our current stage of technology development? FBW envelope protection has clear safety benefits, however lowering the requirements for pilot experience (thus lowing costs) does not. So is the design philosophy of Airbus FBW systems driven purely by safety considerations, or is there also an attempt to build in a requirement to allow lower standards of flying experience in the cockpit, creating what I would call a "mixed objective" design philosophy? Is there an attempt to design into the systems, various compensations for a lower standard of flight experience, including possible "safety" contraints that would prevent a less experienced pilot from making a mistake in judgement? Is this why the Airbus design philosophy "is the way it is"?
I know this is "reaching". You'd have to check out how Airbus markets their aircraft to the various airlines, and if pilot costs are a factor in that marketing. You'd also have to check out what kind of pressure Airbus, and maybe some of their airline customers, apply to the various civil aviation authorities to try and lower the pilot standards for experience.
All I know is that the FBW envelope protection system is subject to failure just like the autopilot is, and both should have a cutoff (or release) button if such an eventuality occurs, just as it did in the accident that started this thread.
------------------
Safe flying to you...
[This message has been edited by Flight Safety (edited 15 June 2001).]