@NigelOnDraft
Disagree. Many systems on aircraft are duplicate, but identical systems. Not just ASIs, but Altimeters, Engines etc. If we followed your logic, on a twin engine aircrraft, one would be RR, one GE etc.
Now that is definitely not logical!
My point is that since airspeed is such a critical factor for the AP to function, an effective alternative backup method of feeding back airspeed to the AP should be incorporated on aircraft. Pitot tubes are exposed to outside elements, they can freeze up or otherwise be damaged and as such they are obviously a weakness in the AP system.
Diaagree. Pilots are on aircraft to fly them, and the ability to be cope when the automatic systems fail. Not v-v. APs are there to reduce fatigue, increase capacity & accuacy (RVSM). After any major / multiple failure, if the integrity of the AFS cannot be assured, it should audibly and clearly "give up", as it did here, not try to fly the aicraft with incomplete / inadequate / non-verifiable data.
Agreed, but when 'giving up' the AP should clearly indicate the exact reason for it's 'giving up' and the pilots should have an established procedure available to them to enable them to recover from any given situation. Why didn't that happen in AF 447's case? Why didn't the pilots understand what was happening? Over confidence in their automated systems perhaps? Or simply a failure to understand the automated systems?
As an aside, I have a military background, both jet instructing, and fast jet flying. I tend to manually fly, at work, to/below 20K'. I fly / display / compete and teach GA inc aerobatics and upset training. I teach / fly display ex-mil jet trainers / FJs. I am very lucky to be able to do that, and to have had the opportunity / luck to have the training I got. It is not available to all. It might be that background that leads me to hope I could have coped with the situation these guys found themselves in. It is that background to realise that many might not fair much better than this crew did. The report covers it under "startle factor". Unless and until we take crews, in sims or aircraft, and regularly (say a <6 month cycle, not ~3 yrs) give them unanticipated multiple systems failures and expect their raw handling and management skills to cope, we will get (a few) such accidents.
'Startle factor' eh? Well that's a real good one. Do you mean to tell me that when flying a planeload of passengers at 35k feet, today's pilots are complacent and unprofessional enough to be 'startled' if a problem arises? Are they not sufficiently trained to handle such situations? Maybe yet another indication of operator / pilot over confidence in their aircrafts auto systems?
FYI, I have no connection with the airline industry, other than flying frequently as SLF, which is apparently the standard and wonderfully respectful aircrew term for paying passengers.