gums;
Well, if true, and the Report does spend some time on this, yes, it is disappointing that the pilots in this case actually "obeyed" the FDs, but quite frankly I have never heard of any pilot I know actually blindly following the flight directors and ignoring the instruments.
Guys I flew with, regularly turned the FDs off if they weren't following them - it's just something one does on the Airbus without even thinking about it, so drilled into Airbus pilots is this requirement.
Ever since the A320 accident at Madras, Airbus pilots have been made VERY aware that if the flight directors aren't going to be followed, turn them off, (the original problem concerning IDLE-OPEN DESCENT with one FD on has long since been fixed).
Now if you're following them, you're not going to turn them off, but if you're going to follow them you had better be damn certain in your own aviator's mind where these bars are taking YOUR airplane.
When a few first suggested that the PF might actually have followed the FD I dismissed it - no transport pilot, esp. an Airbus one, would blindly follow FDs without always questioning what the FD is leading one towards - the computers are high-speed idiots, nothing more. We regularly talked of "looking through" the FDs during momentary changes in flight dynamics and we'd wait for the FDs to catch up to the airplane while temporarily ignoring them. That just comes from a lot of hand-flying but you'll never get it from turning the knobs.
OK465 - thank you - you're quite correct - I'm just explaining the system.
It's an ordinary, very good FD that deserves the same respect and treatment any computer system does - "check six", "trust, but verify", hand-fly raw data - it works because it's an airplane and a beautiful one at that; it is not a computer platform or an iPlane.
Henra - we're on the same page - yes, it could have been recovered. No, I wouldn't have expected this crew to try given how cockpit discipline was conducted.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 8th Jul 2012 at 00:05.