Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
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.
The danger of one taking himself waaay tooooo seriously is the exhibiting of ridiculous patronizing attitudes.
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.
The "enhancements" of the next versions/generations speak and will speak by themselves.
It's not about the manufacturer ... it's about demanding a degree of factual basis behind the discussion
Your very recent posts, like many in the past, on the SS topic are another crude example of your ignoring factual elements, and not producing any countering factual elements, at a "n" iteration.
It does not really matter if it's caused by a lack of comprehension, a lack of technical expertise, or ill intentioned tactics. The predominant appearance of spreading a smoke screen over a few problems is counter productive not only for those very few problems, but the entire Airbus technology, as it reflects badly on the many things that are good.