Boring.
The whole discussion is turning in circles with stubborn defending of backyards. To each creature its feature it seems.
However, some arguments need some haircutting.
1. It is constantly argued, that most critics of the Airbus philosophy have never operated such, therefore are denied to be entitled to criticism (funnily enough many of those pretendants have not themselves either!). However, when critics appear that actually have flown A and B, they are cried down being romantic fossils wanting to go back.
A typical self serving distortion of arguments.
2. To counter the demand for certain improvement on A, the protectionists constantly bring up statistics pretending how much safety has improved. Statistics are made for a purpose, by people with an agenda. We tend to use the ones serving our cause and decrying the supposedly tampered ones that don’t.
If we start weighing statistics versus genuine concerns of involved professionals, then we are on a more than slippery slope.
3. Human error is a fact and will never go away. Trying to implement improved technology to mitigate the risk is fine, as long as we really acknowledge that this in itself can add new traps.
Implying that human error is only happening on the pilot side however is simply arrogant and dangerous. There is a widespread acceptance of pilot error, just as there is a widespread denial of design/engineering error (we all know why).
Engineers err, managers err, regulators err, as it is human. Or do they consider themselves beyond that?
Two discussed design errors:
A. The absence of feedback on primary controls seems to be such an error. The mere fact of the many critics on this thread should be concern that there is a malaise, bring up as many statistics as you want. The presence of pro (fill in any ME dictator) demonstrators can never wipe out the just as many opponents. Such issues must be addressed, belittleing them or brushing them aside approaches dictatorship.
B. The fact that an aircraft is allowed to disobey pilot inputs, even if they have screwed up badly beforehand, seems another error. As long as you need the pilot present as last resort (even just for lawyers), he has to have full authority over the system otherwise you created an operational oxymoron -> If the system malfunctions, the human has to intervene, but the system can still deny it.
Deal with it! But first reread my 3 points above ……
Last edited by Gretchenfrage; 29th Aug 2011 at 07:51.