Originally Posted by
Gretchenfrage
1. It is constantly argued, that most critics of the Airbus philosophy have never operated such, therefore are denied to be entitled to criticism
Not at all, but it does rather dent the argument somewhat when someone says a design feature makes the aircraft difficult to operate when they've never operated it.
However, when critics appear that actually have flown A and B, they are cried down being romantic fossils wanting to go back.
Really? I'd like to see you provide a single example of that from a serious post on this thread or any other on the subject.
...people with an agenda.
Seriously? Pot, meet kettle.
We tend to use the ones serving our cause and decrying the supposedly tampered ones that don’t.
Except when you don't have any, of course - I'm still waiting for a single example of where force-feedback or lack thereof was a factor in a FBW Airbus crash. But of course, some of the design critics will always counter that it must have happened and subsequently been covered up.
If we start weighing statistics versus genuine concerns of involved professionals, then we are on a more than slippery slope.
Admittedly, all we have is anecdotal evidence here, but it suggests that the piloting community is split fairly evenly on the subject, with those who dislike the Airbus FBW philosophy largely from the group who fly other types. We've got at least one senior retired Captain who has flown many types, including the 'bus stating that most pilots he encountered once on the 'bus, had very little problem with it.
Implying that human error is only happening on the pilot side however is simply arrogant and dangerous.
Who's implying that?
just as there is a widespread denial of design/engineering error
So why did Boeing and Airbus change their Stall Recovery procedures, and why is EASA mandating a change to the Airbus autopilot engage logic despite it having no direct bearing on this case - if the possibility of engineering error is being denied?
(we all know why).
Not at all - enlighten us.
Engineers err, managers err, regulators err, as it is human. Or do they consider themselves beyond that?
Engineers certainly don't. The poor bugger who signed off the JAL123 pressure bulkhead repair was proof enough of that.
The absence of feedback on primary controls seems to be such an error.
Then bring your evidence, as has been asked many times by many people - because right now there doesn't seem to be any.
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.
In other words "Some people agree with me, therefore you should take my opinion as fact even though roughly just as many do not". Great argument.
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.
So now people who disagree with you are likened to Gaddafi/Saddam supporters. Would you like a bigger shovel?
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.
Except in this case it didn't - we're talking about AF447, right? The system gave the pilot full pitch and trim authority via the sidestick through a feature that was specifically designed to give the pilot full authority if something goes wrong with the computers - or if they start receiving bad data. You show me where that A330 did something it was not directly ordered to do and I'll not only shut up for the duration of this thread, I'll personally mail you a cookie.
As far as I can see, Sir, the only one trying to take this thread around into old arguments and logical cul-de-sacs right now is you.