Owain
Contrary to the somewhat snide slur implied by "not bad guys, but not really up to the job" Gordon was an ex ARB, ex CAA, test pilot who had flown many more types than, I suspect, anyone else writing in this forum. This for passing them off in certification, not joy riding. He probably knew more of the good and bad points of As and Bs and quite a few other manufacturer's designs than any line pilot.
So please - check on facts before denigrating the manufacturers pilots!
Well, there’s no intent to denigrate anyone and I never implied “not up to the job”. Even a genius can provide an inept design. As Dozy pointed out, there might have been a broad selection of pilots involved in the design, just as your friend. By the way I truly honor his credentials.
With all the information about how and when and why a design was created, we tend to forget to look at the outcome. This is the essence of it. Unfortunately this design seems not to convene to a lot of pilots, just read on these pages. That is the troubling fact.
Now what does that tell you of a design? At the least I would expect that the manufacturer and regulator would also listen to them. Not only lecture them to understand the system better or get more training, although this can never be wrong.
It is like wanting to change the human (good luck) instead of going the way we all thought was intended, namely to adapt the helpful automation to the humans capacities.
Confusion with the absence of tactile feeback started with Habsheim, as the PF was not sure if the AT really was giving TOGA because nothing moved and then clicked back to idle and TOGA again losing precious seconds, and still lingers with AF447, seeing the clicking through detents and swinging the stick.
We need to accept that not all pilots are of the stuff of the forementioned designer. An airliner needs to be designed for the average pilot. Some may be able to work with the single channel input, some may not. My point is that probably more are of the second breed, at least that is what I experienced and I am of that club myself.
This leads me to the question as to why not adapt the system to the prevalent talent that operates it? As Dozy rightly points out
This wasn't just pilot error, this is a systemic problem affecting the airlines and the industry as a whole
So go ahead and change all the flaws, not only the pilot's.
Just a few remarks on Dozy’s other reflections (I like your factual way of discussing)
What this tells me is that you have an innate distrust of technology, and that colours your perception of the systems
I was always told to expect the unexpected and always stay on top of the things. This involves a healthy amount of initial distrust.
they've convinced the certification authorities and the regulators that they won't automatically control you into an unstable attitude and then hand you back the controls, yet you seem to be fully convinced that they will.
Now I'm not saying they won't or can't, but I believe the chances of it happening are suitably remote
Even remote chances need to be correctly addressed. Otherwise no need for V1 or ETOPS ‘cos the chances are statistically very remote.
That is my point.
This particular problem with automation gets too little attention.