@RWA - have a look at the traces here:
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/46062...ml#post6643497
There was a misprint in one version of the report, but if you look at the traces from the latest version (link to other thread above), you can see that the large inputs (that we know are coming from the PF) are from the FIRST OFFICER position.
@jcj - The BEA don't give a "stance", they're just giving a literal translation of the words. I'm trying to apply logical thinking to those words. Put it this way - would you give "preventative" advice to a pilot
that was the same rank as you unless you thought they might be doing something that didn't seem right? Of course it's "possible" for the aircraft to roll by itself, but wouldn't an instinctive first reaction of the pilot monitoring be to ask the handling pilot if he was responsible for the aircraft trajectory he was seeing?
@franzl, below - You and CONF (and some others) see it one way, I (and some others) see it another. I get tired of being told I'm seeing things like a "computer game" and that I should listen to "real pilots", as though every pilot feels the same way about the Airbus control philosophy (they don't, but to people like CONF those that don't simply don't count). I agree that tactile feedback is a "nice to have", but I don't think it is a necessity - I don't even think it makes things that much safer, especially given that there are far more glaring holes in the cheese far further up the chain. To me it's the "Back to interconnected yokes or bust" crew who are making the unreasonable demands in the face of the fact that it is *not* apparent that the PNF was unaware of what the PF was doing, on top of the fact that UAS incidents have felled aircraft with yokes as well - it is simply not a good situation to be in.
[EDIT : *Here's* the quote of the entire sentence, which CONF helpfully edited :
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate properly, and that a pilot can counteract the inputs of an incapacitated pilot in the other seat if the situation is recognised. Compare that to the old yoke system whereby whoever was the strongest decided the direction of the aircraft, or the more modern yoke in the 767 when opposite inputs cause the elevators to move in opposite directions (as EgyptAir 990 appeared to prove).
I intended to use the words "theoretically" and "can" to distinguish what might be possible from the actual state-of-the-art. I didn't phrase it well, so my apologies. ]