me:
those aircrafts are ultimately flown by men and that men revert to basics when in face of an outstanding dangerous situation.
Mike X:
No offence, but your statement is unqualified.
No offense taken. But what has Roselawn to do with what I have said?
My line of argumentation has to do with feed-back and interface between machine and pilots. Of course pilots have to be proficient.
The question I am highlighting is a different one:
We fly FBW Airbuses in a
different way from other aircraft. Although the same laws of aerodynamics apply, the "orders we give" to Airbus Flight Controls are: "You fly this way". We really "don't care how" the aircraft is going to "fly that way", but underneath that "order", a number of systems will try to cope with that "order", and will move all the necessary flight controls surfaces (including THS) in order to cope with that "demand". The protections are used to prevent pilots to "order" unrealistic or stupid demands, when in normal law. But when those protections are lost in alternate law, pilots must be very careful when "asking" for unrealistic "orders" (from a degraded FBW aircraft). Unfortunately, the fact that pilots are now used to "ask" for what they "want" from FBW aircraft, without having to actually "fly" the aircraft, has lead them to a false sense of safety. Moreover, the fact that pilots now have no feed-back on the sticks has turned them senseless and complacent. We, FBW pilots have left ourselves tend to be taken by the Principle of Least Effort. And the only way to cope with that, is to try to keep proficient on basic flying skills. I have the fortune of having my own Pitts (together with a couple of friends). Others, just take some spare time in the local aero club. But most think its just a waste of time. I would advise them to think again...and get back to basics.