@DL-EDI...
"And I should clarify that my point was only that the Airbus dual-input logic makes sense when one thinks about it and probably wasn't designed by "idiots"."
Howdy. Yes, the solution is elegant. My point went to the actual need for a solution in the first place. In creating a system that facilitates inadvertent dual input, the solution becomes mandatory. The argument against dual yoke seemed to be based on physical confrontation, a separate issue. At no time did I imply that The Airbus system was vulnerable to battling pilots. On the contrary, the danger is in the subtlety of the SS, and it's other shortcomings, visibility being one, and I'll add lack of shaker warn to that. BEA have demonstrated that in Alternate Law, the Airbus is mostly vanilla, but untested in STALL, so the basis for a stick (shaker) waiver is found to be awarded in error.
Clandestino has posited, in my opinion, that a shaker is not needed, simply because it is not fitted ...
The CVR has been removed from the report, at least in my efforts, I cannot find it. I was trying to locate the new to the discussion remark made by CDB DuBois to the effect that the selector had remained in "ON". That is my conclusion, or that he had attempted to select it "ON" for some reason. The CVR remark was not clear, only that the sound of a selector being cycled was picked up by the Cockpit Area Microphone....
Last edited by Lyman; 16th Jul 2012 at 12:26.