what has this to do with airbus?
Nothing, except that that was the manufacturer of AF447.
It might apply to all FBW aircraft some way or the other.
have you not been reading the accident reports from analogue aircraft that have stalled in the past?
Exactly the same reaction from crew flying, leading to exactly the same end result.
As much as I respect Aguadalte, his comments about going back to the stone age apply here. We have been there done it, seen the film, read the book.
Aircraft with tactile feedback, stick shakers and all the rest have stalled and crashed in the past just like AF447. The only difference between then and now is that safety has never been better.
With lesser reliable aircraft, with other workloads, with other environmental information. yet lost to the same cause: Unable to recover due to different reasons. Although we have no statistic how much aircraft really expierienced a stall situation and how much of those recovered succesfully. The percentage of stall events versus resulting crash would be the interesting one.
The way forward and away from this caveman approach is not to go back to the stone age and install tactile feedback and stick shakers. The way forward is to improve on the technology (with sensible pilot input void of emotion) and increase training where necessary.
That is your argument again and again despite the fact that nobody wants cables and pulleys back, nobody an old style shaker and nobody a control column the size of a street lighting pole.
It has nothing to do with stone age to (re) add some features, which provide an aditional sensory input by a different sensor (not the eye). Nobody wants the old systems back, invent something brand new (must not bee JD-EEīs old pizza throwing device), something that helps to recognize the situation not only with eyes and ears. Letīs use the full engineering knowledge not to skip something for weight reduction and costs, but to add some new developped gadget despite weight and costs for safety concerns (nice username though).
By the way, we are back to the old stall recovery procedure (see TechLog) as well, why not use the formerly used tactile input channel as well? Pride? Cost? Stubborness?
Just work on a way to get the crews attention by using all available sensory channels to recognize and act to an extreme situation like AF447 got itself in. That must be the aim.
And to repeat it : No stick pushers like the old ones, no stick shakers like the old ones, no center yokes as the old ones, no pulleys and cables, no stone age. Invent something new instead of those with the same or even improved feedback results, and we wonīt be back in stone age, but hopefully in a more safer future.