I told you that before, and i thought you got it and would be able to communicate in the future on that basis. Instead you fall back in the old A vs. B and old vs new saga.
That does not take care on the aim to improve safety.
Exactly but it is pilots who have posted airbus attack after airbus attack even though Boeing has suffered more accidents under similar conditions
And then the autotrim cutting out with THS at max ANU.Do you think pilots have time in a bad situation to look at the ECAM and start deciphering what effect the changing laws have on what theyre doing?If they can remember.ALT LAW..right, I have no stall warning protection.ABNORMAL LAW..right, trim is manual.THEY FLY THE PLANE FIRST AND FOREMOST.And the stall warning inhibit?Going off when the aircraft was in a deep stall?This is acceptable design is it?All this complex and frankly suspect interface design didnt have any effect whatsoever on the outcome??
To apply backstick with a ridiculously low IAS flies in the face of any logic. It indicates a major chasm in AF training - and I fear probably across other AB companies too.
To quote just a few of the more ridiculous comments.
Analogue aircraft suffered the same outcomes under the same conditions. Yet safety is better today than then. Going back won't achieve anything as won't the constant consistent misinformed uneducated criticism of one manufacturer over the other.
That message still aligns with retired f4