Control stick inputs, instruments, laws
Once again, I have to go with Retired.
If I am not the pilot in control, then simply looking at the instruments does not provide the best feedback required to maintain control or get the beast going where you wish. It is true that having a mechanically coupled wheel/stick would help the "other guy" understand what was happening, but the jet involved did not have that feature. Retired pointed out that the "other guy" did not know exactly what the control inputs were and finally advised to use some rudder to pick up the low wing.
I realize that I do not have 20,000 hours as some here. But I prolly had as many takeoffs and landings with my measly 4,000 hours, none of which had a co-pilot to help/monitor. I also had to solo pilots from a "chase" aircraft on their first hop, as we had no family models. So not feeling their control inputs was very familiar to me. 'nuff of that.
Rely on the instruments? Hell, the tragedy started when the instruments became unreliable!! BEAM ME UP! So would you trust the speed and air data after the A/P disconnected and then the PF states we're in alternate law? Then we have stall warnings and other chimes.
Those that have not flown FBW still need to realize that even in the Airbus "direct" law, the computers still modify the control surface deflections and deflection rates. To wit from FCOM manual I have:
- "In all configurations elevator deflection varies as a function of aircraft C.G."
- Roll rate commands are limited in ALT 2 depending upon gains and configuration". 20 - 25 deg/sec compared to 15 deg/sec in "normal". So roll is not a direct movement of the ailerons/spoilers WRT to stick inputs.
Finally, this old curmudgeon is not anti-Airbus. I crowed about the A320 with partners of mine on our first flight in one of them. Asked them to look at the ailerons and spoilers moving to keep bank angle constant even in mild turbulence. Small movements not possible with the older systems. I gained a lot of respect for the GD folks that did the Viper system after a few minutes flying the beast. I gained more after my leading edge flap failure ( see my bio on my profile).
I simply feel that there are too many protections that are different between all the reversion laws. For example, why the change in roll rates? Why keep changing things when air data is deemed unreliable by HAL ( had to get that in for Doze, heh heh) versus switching to a simple standby gains vale or all the gains and such? And the beat goes on...
And then there's the issue, a big one, of crew training for worst case scenarios, and that may be a major recommendation of the accident board, IMHO.
Gotta go, and I only have a basic B.S. in the academic arena, but prolly a PhD in the real world school.