Originally Posted by
Turbine D
These are not assertions that are provably false, they are simply Dozy's opinions that can be provably false in part or whole. Each can be challenged and debated and have been and will continue to be.
I deliberately avoided the "debatable" issues, and I can prove every one of those that make up that list (give me until tomorrow though - it's late).
As an engineer speaking, there is no man-made aircraft, engine, control system, software or whatever, however you want to cut it, that can't be improved upon, period!
I never said that wasn't the case - I just dispute some of the old canards which have been raised against the design since 1988.
As an engineer (albeit of the software persuasion) that maxim is something I live by on a daily basis!
And so goes it with Airbus and their FBW aircraft. In fact, the technology of the A-320 is old technology today (1984), if it hasn't been improved upon or changed from the original concept.
That's pretty much exactly my position!
What gets my hackles up is the unquestioning assumption (and conclusions derived thereof) that the design was primarily based upon taking pilots "out of the loop", which is a brazen lie.
I've said several times that some of the assumptions made at the design stage need revisiting in the light of later experience, but the idea that the fundamental design was flawed is simply not borne out by the evidence.
The Airbus FBW design is a long way from perfect, but I don't believe that it is any further from perfect than the alternatives on offer today.
In case you didn't see me saying this earlier - *engineering is the art of compromise*. That some base their perception on the idea that the design decisions taken were based on the erroneous assumption that Airbus wanted to sideline pilots is not my fault.
This is not the informative "technical" Dozy posting that were worth reading.
Allow me a little light-heartedness. Interaction on this thread would be incredibly depressing otherwise.