Originally Posted by
Organfreak
And how did you arrive at this "fact"? Shall we dismiss every contention posted by a pilot if it is negative to AB?
Not at all - rudderrudderrat makes a valid point above that some of Airbus's training is a bit blase about relying on the protections. I'd be inclined to think that using full back stick in windshear escape is using the tools provided well, but he's right that the trainng should include the caveat that full deflection should be used as an emergency measure only, and only when the control law has not degraded.
Nope, it's not my call because you're defining the terms ("politically-motivated") in a way that isn't at all apparent to me.
You weren't a member when CONF iture joined, and along with a now-defunct poster known as "the shrimp", proceeded to blanket Airbus-related threads with links to Norbert Jacquet's website. The Jacquet case is nothing if not political.
And, you state plenty of things that aren't facts, but rather opinions, and you have been contradicted by line pilots more times than I'd count. It rolls right off of you.
I've got at least as many agreeing with me as those who disagree (both in public and via PM). As far as I'm aware, the only line pilot making a meal out of our interactions of late is CONF iture. Every opinion I put forward is based on the evidence I've accumulated over the years.
Bottom line, you almost invariably defend Airbus at the slightest opening. It's clearly biased. Very clearly. It is time to adopt a less arrogant attitude. Sorry for the harsh feedback on how you come off!
To you, maybe - to others, not so much. I'm not defending Airbus, but if I see a blatant bit of misinformation, myth presented as fact, or a conclusion derived entirely from internal bias, then I will call it. The problem is that there's a lot more misinformation out there regarding Airbus than other manufacturers - so it will tend to look that way if you're not used to it.
Here's a short list of things that came up on this thread and it's predecessors - none of them true, but nevertheless fervently believed by those who posted them
To be clear - all of the below assertions are provably false- Airbus have weaker vertical stabiliser attachments than other mfrs
- The Airbus FBW flight deck was designed as the first step towards pilotless airliners
- The infamous Habsheim A320 crashed because the computer thought it was in landing mode
- With a connected yoke, pilots will automatically see poor handling and take control
- Airbus pushed hard for more automation, and their airliners are more automated than any other types of the same vintage
- The Airbus A320 was designed by engineers and computer geeks with little or no pilot input
- Airbus FBW computers will command an attitude change opposite that of pilot input
- The Boeing FBW design is simpler than that of Airbus
- The BEA deliberately steer investigations to protect Airbus
The last one came up recently, with the poster lamenting that the BEA is not an NGO - but neither is the UK AAIB - and the US NTSB, while nominally independent, remains a government agency.
"Hammondfan." I like it.
Someone referred to you as "Orangefreak" in an earlier reply - I figured I'd make the "Organ" aspect clearer. (see also: "Farfisanut", "Voxadorer" etc.
)
@Franzl - in Alternate Law, all the "hard" protections are lost (Alternate Law's "soft" protections can be overridden by pilot input). If you don't know exactly what systems have failed to put you in Alternate, then you can still fly safely by staying within the envelope (which you should be doing anyway), and assuming that all protections are gone. The whole point of grouping complex failure modes - of which there are thousands - into a small number of flight laws is to make life easier for the pilot, because they don't have a flight engineer anymore.