Originally Posted by
airtren
You may pretend to be, or would like to think as "neutral", but it's so obvious were you stand. Your personal attacks, ....
I wasn't the one who obliquely described me as a "fanatical toady" - I've said nothing personal to anyone who hadn't already got personal with me.
the "anti-Airbus brigade" obsession
It's not an obsession, it's just the way of things - whenever the subject comes up, the same 3 or 4 posters always materialise and cast the same aspersions they always do - rarely if ever bringing anything new to the discussion.
and your self assigned mission of defending Airbus at any cost, even those elements that are scientifically indefensible
I'd love to see the post where I assigned myself that mission, because it must have been someone else using my handle - unless of course you're making it up. And I'd also love to know what you find "scientifically indefensible" about the design.
I'm just here to make sure that press-induced falsehoods about the design, including but not limited to it being "designed to take pilots out of the loop", "the first step in replacing pilots", "designed by managers and computer nerds without pilot input" and "reliant on the French Government covering up the real reasons for accidents" meet with robust and evidence-supported rebuttal. Any or all of which are not only substantively untrue, but also defamatory against the hard work of all the teams that have worked on it over the years, some of whom are no longer with us.
for anyone that is a professional, and wrongly extrapolating faults with certain few Airbus elements, as being applied to the entire Airbus design, is a good indication of the type of alignment you're driven by.
In this case, aside from the pitot tube issues (which are serious, and Airbus/AF have some 'splaining to do there...), it's looking increasingly likely that there were no hardware (or indeed software) faults involved in the crash of AF447. All the talk of sidestick vs. yoke and FBW vs. conventional control are therefore nothing more than a distraction from the issues at hand. Laying the blame for insufficient training at Airbus's door because management got the wrong idea about what automation means is also a false attribution. If it was Boeing getting the stick I'd be just as annoyed about it.
It's not about the manufacturer and it's not about defending modern automated aircraft in the slightest, it's about demanding a degree of factual basis behind the discussion rather than a bunch of tired old cliches that have been doing the rounds since 1988.