Originally Posted by
Lyman
In this paragraph is the heart of the flaw in the architecture.....
To wit: "Hide the problem"......
Po-ta-to, po-tah-to. You can look at it as "hiding" the problem, but it's really just trying to make the problem more manageable for the person in control.
No-one has addressed the point I made that the inputs made by the PF were wildly inappropriate for the circumstances, whatever the control law. Getting hung up on control laws and degradation distracts from the far more worrying fact that AF (and probably several other airlines) was routinely sending crews up in which two-thirds of the flight crew had no training in high-altitude manual handling.
Originally Posted by
CONF iture
More training especially simulator for those who fly and attempt to assimilate the complexity of the magic machine from Blagnac
It's another of those rare occasions where we agree - although I would like to point out that the "machine from Blagnac" is neither magic (in fact it's quite long-in-the-tooth technology-wise these days), nor is it any more complicated than any other airliner designed in that era.
The whole point of the flight-deck design in cost-saving terms was purely related to streamlining conversion training between types - it was never intended to give airlines an excuse to cut back on any other type of training.
@franzl - I think something might be lost in translation. "Fly ... as you would normally" is not the same as "It flies the same as in Normal Law" - the first statement refers to how the human should approach things ("Du sollst") and the latter describes the aircraft's behaviour ("Es verhält sich") - albeit inaccurately.