slats11, posted:
But even so, is there some truth in this?
I think so: QF-32 (VH-OQA) incident may be is a good example. I wonder if even a design team member of the craft could understand what was going on.
And the plane was flying "normally". Suppose if it entered "strange behavior" like JAL 123 (extreme case, i agree)
Overall, the statistics suggest that we are on the right track. But every now and again (and almost at random) the holes will all line up.
Perfect!
AF447 perhaps presented to the (2)* crew a "strange behavior". Did they "understand" it timely during the "short" crisis? I repeat: Was possible even to understand? Just CVR probably will answer.
* Considering Capt. Marc "out of the loop". And (if entered) presenting extra "components" to the "crisis administration" resources.
Or do they get pages of warnings on their displays, information overload, confusion about what is happening, and some unfamiliar degraded flight law?
In JAL123 they were able to fly during ~30 minutes.
Real world situations presents "masks" to the real causes". Perform precisely and timely (crisis administration) was transformed in a "highly complex challenge". Even for a pilot with (hypothetically) "the design in his mind". And i suspect is becoming "increasingly difficult" despite the "friendly Systems help".