Originally Posted by DozyWannabe; Post #1338
*All* of them are from people who either do not understand the Airbus FBW concept, have never flown a FBW Airbus and/or have a long-standing axe to grind with Airbus.
As a reminder, these posts were aligned with the BEA analysis, and likely the recommendation that has been delayed now. Would you put BEA experts in any of those 3 categories?
Let me tackle it one by one:
1. "Understand the Airbus FBW concept"
What does the Stall Warning have to do with FBW?
It is an Emergency Error Message to the pilot, about the state of the plane, that can be fatal. The "media" for transmitting commands from the pilot to the controls can be anything as long as it does the job of carrying the commands. It can be wire (FBW), WI-FI (wireless), optical fiber, cable, compressed gas/air, hydraulic, etc....
Furthermore, regarding its importance, and place within the system, the Message can be generalized. It is not different than ANY Emergency Error Message about a possible fatal situation or condition, relative to the functioning of a box, coming from the box to the operator of that box, with the purpose to trigger an action of the operator of removing the condition, or cause of the situation.
2. "Have never flown an Airbus".
Doesn't Air France action/opinion on the Stall Warning also represent Airbus pilots position and interpretation?
A pilot trained to fly Airbus is also trained to follow certain procedures to bypass the a/c weaknesses.
Good training is a MUST, no doubt. But good training, and peer pressure in the pilot community coming with the good training, while has positive effect, it also, creates a paradoxical situation, in that it is a brain-washing mechanism, that contributes to hiding or minimizing weaknesses, or problems with the a/c.
3. "axe to grind with Airbus."
This is one of the most detrimental criteria, and has become typical.
It makes it very easy to arbitrarily label, categorize and dismiss. It makes it easy to muddy/fog the path to the truth.