Originally Posted by
Gretchenfrage
As a simple user, however, I only judge by crashes and my PC does that regularly more often than my two Macs.
How much did you pay for your PC versus your two Macs? You'll find a lot of the time it's due to volume manufacturers using cheap components, whereas Apple (as well as premium Wintel manufacturers) tend to cherry-pick theirs. Windows' file system requires more user maintenance over time than a Un*x-based equivalent. The machine I'm typing this on has crashed precisely once since I installed it, and that's because I was doing low-level development - it's running Vista, which is commonly regarded as the worst NT-based OS Microsoft have released. This is because I built the thing myself from top-grade components and I know how to maintain it, however I recognise that's a route that may not appeal to everyone.
Now wasn't it Airbus who pretended to make a system that's easier in it's operation? Wasn't that the main selling argument? Less pilot training due to easier operating and better protection?
It is easier in normal operation, there's no question about that. Like all complex machinery though, the issues occur when things go wrong.
I'm not convinced that the "less pilot training due to easier operating and better protection" wasn't a misunderstanding of the press, or possibly Airbus's marketing department. Airbus's sales pitch has always been about less *conversion* training between its FBW models compared to other manufacturers. The safety aspects of the protections and FBW systems were a separate issue, and were backed up by some *very* distinguished pilots during the development phase.
It seems they got caught out by their own pretension. Almost all Airbus defenders today however shift to the argument that lack of system-knowledge caught the AF pilots. - A distinct change of paradigm!
The same as it would have been in any other aircraft. You can't get away from the fact that immediately pulling the stick back upon FMC disconnection was the precise opposite of what should have been done on a basic airmanship level, let alone anything above that.
In fact from my reading it has been the anti-Airbus crowd that have been arguing that the systems are too complex and that the pilots could not possibly have understood them. Those who I know are actual Airbus crew have always maintained that the system is designed to be flown like any other aircraft and that the only thing one needs to remember is the loss of hard protections once outside of Normal Law.
Even if the underlying programming of a T7 is more complex, its operation is simpler and more easy to grasp and operate for pilots.
I largely prefer that and it seems to work better.
That is your opinion and you are very much entitled to it, but that does not make "T7 = better" incontrovertible fact. The very fact that people are talking about "real" aviators flying by feel suggests that at the heart of this distrust lies some bitterness at the romantic aspect of flying going the way of the dodo, but Airbus are not solely responsible for that - it's just the way things go.
With the knowledge I have now, had I been born a decade earlier I could have been happily ensconced on a six-figure salary with automatic respect from management for the technical decisions I make. Things changed and my skills are much more commonplace now, but I don't waste my time being bitter and grouching about it.
Up to now there is no victim to be mourned from a T7 accident.
That counts a zillion, at least to me.
That could have been very different but for the skill of the crew at the controls of BA038 - don't forget that!