Originally Posted by
CONF iture
safetypee, I do agree, that's why I am asking again and again : Why don't we have access to those data ?
They are only data, why are they so secretive and so partially presented and so, in such a confused manner ?
3D animation is available too ...
Why should the BEA release such materials prior to the publishing of a report when practically no other accident investigation bureau does? I don't see you lambasting the NTSB or AAIB for not releasing data until they're ready to!
Originally Posted by
rudderrudderrat
I agree with him completely. If Airbus FBW in ALT LAW doesn't have the same stall protection as Normal Law, then pilots should have the natural "elevator feel" returned to them, by disabling the auto trim function.
You're proposing a design change based on a single incident. Don't you think these scenarios have been played out to determine the design parameters? I suspect that the reason trim remains a sidestick function in Alternative Law would be in the case of an incapacitated crew scenario, where the remaining pilot has elevator and trim in their stick hand and throttles in the other, rather than having to dance between the stick, throttles and trim wheel with only two hands. What you're in effect proposing is a straight drop to Direct Law upon loss of air data.
Originally Posted by
bearfoil
The Wall of misunderstanding twixt the engineer and the Pilot will keep killing people until both understand the other. Please stop stubborn Pride from putting people at risk.
But bear, as yet there's no evidence of a "wall of misunderstanding" in this accident because we don't have all the facts, yet you and many others (barely any of whom are current Airbus pilots) are pronouncing it as if you have the facts in your hands rather than simply regurgitating prejudice.