Flightsafety, Brad 737, I strongly disagree with your incorrect vision on the AI phylosophy. I do not see the pilot dissapearing from the cockpit at all in the future and I do certainly not feel or think it is Airbus' intention nor mine to do so. In fact, I think the Airbus FBW's lend themselves much better to manual flying. Actually, the current devellopement in avionics shows a willingness to make them more natural to use, and to allow the pilot more insight and so more imput into the situation. Stop seeing FBW as something that limits the pilot. I am a line pilot, and although maybe not being such a natural as Brad seems to be, I do believe strongly in the importance the pilot has in flying airliners. I think he should very much stay in control and I don't think FBW prevents him doing so. Ask any F-16 or Eurofighter pilot what they think about this... You are also forgetting that AI FBW IS overridable. You can switch of the FAC's or ELAC's or hold the trimwheel in position (you didn't hear me say that) to go into direct law and have a conventional aircraft in your hands. But it isn't designed to do so. This would be like having a car with an overridable antiskid. I can assure you that as an average driver, (not a superior one like Brad ;-) (only jokin' Brad, I know you didn't mean it that way) ) , the first thing you will do the day that kid jumps in front of your car and it LOOKS as if you're not going to make it, is push the "override button". The CHANCE of you hitting the kid because you disconnected the system will always be higher than if you didn't. Come on, Formula 1 drivers use active suspention and anti-skid braking. Are they inferior drivers, guys?? I bet my bottom dollar accidents WILL happen because of the electronics going wrong in one of these systems. What do you want to do? Do away with anti-skid??? I never doubted pilots are great decision makers, but they (I) do not have built in G and angle of attack meters. The final decision to roll the aircraft left or right or pull more or less G's should always be left with the pilot. But compare it with FADEC. The system is designed to give you the maximum it can get immediatly. And it does limit the pilot by giving him a limited amount of thrust. It will give you the maximum rated thrust of the engine, not what the engine might (???) be able to do. Why, Brad 737, would you know better how many G's you're pulling than how much EGT or N1 your engine has? Exactly, you need something to measure it with, then you need something to prevent you going over the limit because you know you will one day... The system never questions your decision making ability (you get max rated thrust when you ask for it), but it inevitably has the edge when providing you with max performance within the limits. One day there will be 1 (or God forbid) 2 FADECs going haywire and preventing a conventionally controlled aircraft from e.g. going around. That won't mean that FADEC is crap, or that the pilots should all of a sudden be allowed to get 1000C EGT from an engine that is rated to do 650 EGT. It does mean that a fault occured in the design of the system, wich is inevitable, no matter what kind of system you design. Be it hydraulic/direct, cable or FBW... Stop treating computers like ET's please. Computers are machines, they can and they will go wrong. And they don't posses some kind of personality or have a will of their own. They are systems that need to be develloped, just like all the other ones.
PS: without wanting to sound patronising, but can you please first READ my postings before criticising them?