Originally Posted by rudderrrudderrat
You will have had cognitive overload on many occasions - but probably have not realised it. Have you never missed an RT call?
I certainly did, but as a firm believer that aeroplane flies thanks to principles discovered by Bernoulli and not Marconi, I have never dropped the aeroplane to fly the mike.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
Those who don't appreciate that it is a human limitation should not be in aviation.
And what bearing on AF447 does it have? That it was inevitable? That we have to change instruments to fight it? That the 32 crews that didn't put themselves into stall when faced with UAS were just lucky? Of course anyone can be overloaded but simple loss of IAS resulting in cognitive overload (provided it's proven) is not something anyone reasonably informed of airline flying would be expecting to see. Besides, if cognitive overload resulted in stupor, aeroplane would probably fly itself to the other side of the ice clouds and chances are everything would be just fine afterwards.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
As I told Dozy, SmartCockpit is not necessarily updated. I have well tried to put doubt in your mind … but what could we teach to a guy with the head of your size after all.
Now, give a call to Airbus, they might reinstall a mechanic link on the rudder, just for you. Who knows ?
I make fun of you, Captain, but by reading your replies to others ... you fully deserve it. Reserve, modesty, humility … can be part of the picture too you know ?
Originally Posted by A33zab
1/ original system with mech cable loop (like F-GZCP) is called - mechanical rudder - altough the cable loop is a backup system.
Thank you very much, gentlemen, for kindly answering my question whether Airbus has recently modified the A330 rudder. So it did, but seemingly not before F-GZCP left the Toulouse on her maiden flight. Seemingly we can not blame whatever happened to AF447 on alleged idiosyncrasies of the new electric rudder after all.
CONF iture, reservedly, modestly, and humbly claiming that e.g. Habsheim crash was caused by software protecting the aeroplane was never my cup of tea. I prefer to have my opinions as closely aligned to facts as it is possible and am not particularly caring about sugarcoating. I accept that many time I will be wrong but I also expect that I will be corrected by someone more knowledgeable than me. Way the corrections are delivered is of no particular interest to me. FWIW, I have no problem with them being extremely derisive, as long as I get facts straight. I have always preferred substance to style.
Originally Posted by ventus45
Perhaps a better way to put it would be:
"An aircraft that can not be demonstrated to be average line pilot worthy, shall not be certified as airworthy".
That's one of the main points of airworthiness certificate since the first one was issued.