Originally Posted by roulishollandais
The engineers team who concepted the ACARS system was/is really EXCELLENT. Much much better than the team who built the control system. Informative, reliable, working as designed, simple, cheap, always well accepted by the pilot, etc. (all the qualities!) This team should redesign and correct the FCS for AIRBUS with all the dangerous garbage addenda. (please no graceful degradation only direct informations).
Seems that somehow the idea that being able to tell the difference between communications system and flight controls is overrated crawled into this discussion. It is important to tell the difference if you are seriously into aviation.
Originally Posted by roulissholandais
I think Airbus pilots are bad informed and need to (re)learn physic of flight.
I think someone has no idea that pilots learn physics of flight before they are let anywhere near any aeroplane, that they have to be quite versed in it before starting their type rating and what is written in the preface of every Airbus FCOM. Thanks for entertainment, though.
Originally Posted by roullisholandais
Since when and why did the flight test pilots no more stall airliners ?
Where? Only in the mind of some fairly clueless PPRuNers. Airliners are fully stalled during flight testing, which doesn't imply they are tested to 45° AoA. Just nice aerodynamic stall and prompt recovery. Those that got recovered only through use of anti-spin chutes, got stick-pushers. Simples.
Originally Posted by Machinbirds
What you are flying can be made better.....once the engineers begin to realize what kind of traps they have created inadvertently.
What traps? Is there something you don't like about Airbuses that also makes them patently unsafe? How come you know something all the aviation authorities that accept Airbi as safe and sound aeroplane don't? Did you inform the relevant authorities or you just shared your discoveries with us on PPRuNe?
Originally Posted by TTex600
I can't begin to believe that the design team that came up with the AB FBW system (w/protections) intended to make things harder than necessary, nor that they would knowingly design a confusing system.
Good you can't believe it as they didn't. It is not overly hard to understand it, for Airbus pilots, that is.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Therefore, the confusing and harder than necessary situations they created were a mistake.
The mistakes were made by the pilots, though.
Originally Posted by TTex600
My only question would be: will they now correct their mistake
I'm sure they will if you point it out to them using some good arguments.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Flat panel displays that require interpretation vs recognition. (I can recognize a specific speed, say 250kts on a round dial by noticing where the needle points - no thought necessary - while a tape requires more attention.)
Tough luck, all modern airliners, from Q400 to B748 have tapes instead of dials. Is it a conspiracy of about everyone making instruments or perchance there was some design forethought at work here and those tape-haters are just a loud minority, disregarded at no large cost, if any at all?
Originally Posted by TTex600
An attention DEMANDING ECAM system.
Of course it demands attention, after all it tells you what is wrong with your systems! It absolutely does not relieve you of duty to secure the flightpath before going troubleshooting.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Controls with no feedback.
We abandoned those in early 1960s, except for general aviation, some medium turboprops and technical marvels from Long Beach. Just watch the furious answers to this.
Originally Posted by TTex600
An airframe that does not trim for speed, but for flight path.
It is important to tell the difference between the airframe and flight control systems but anyway what's wrong with maintaining the flight path? Isn't it what the pilot is normally supposed to do, it's just easier with autotrim?
Originally Posted by TTex600
An institutional reliance, almost religious reliance on FD's - in training and operations........and FD's that are allowed to provide misleading data.
There is absolutely nothing religious about pilots' training. Nothing is dogmatic, everything is verifiable. Warning that flight directors will lead astray if in wrong mode is included in every training, as is inculcating the habit to constantly check FMA for correct mode and selected values. It is entertaining to read the outsiders' misconception on the way airline pilots do their job but it gets a bit annoying when such notions are stubbornly touted to be true.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Warning systems (in combination with ECAM) that adds to sensory overload vs providing help for focus when in sensory overload.
Are you really suggesting that warning system going about their business contributed to sensory overload? How come other crews weren't sensory overloaded? How in the world can warning system help the pilot focus on flying? For Finnegan's sake, it seems as if you are suggesting that pilots need full-time electronic instructor telling them "Don't pull now... push it gently... easy... that's it". If you can't handle an abnormal now and then, you have no job being in the cockpit.
Originally Posted by TTex600
A manufacturers training program that assumes competence and yet demands compliance.
That describes every training program I was through in my life, from learning to write to basic infantry training. What is it supposed to do? Assume incompetence and demand non-compliance?
Originally Posted by TTex600
But at least the little Boeings don't add to the confusion.
They don't use the same sound for TO config and excessive cabin altitude, don't they?
Originally Posted by safetypee
And for this perhaps we should look at what goes right in operations, how the human adapts or not, and from those aspects seek more focused improvements.
Look no further than 36 cases of UAS on 330/340 that ended uneventfully to see how ludicrous is to make sweeping statements based on just one case.
Originally Posted by ap08
Let me rephrase this: we have modern technology, and "modern" means "cool", so we apply the "cool" technology to the task of aviating.
We who deal with aviation in our real lives are not looking for "cool", we are looking for safe, useful and economical. It might look "cool" for those who notice there's aviation going on only when something that pull their emotional strings happens, such as accident. Call Airbus cool if it makes you happy but that doesn't detract from the fact it is well designed, well built and safe aeroplane.
Originally Posted by ap08
Unfortunately, it turns out that the task and techniques (including training) are somehow inappropriate for modern technology. Therefore, the task of aviating needs to be redefined, to better suit modern technology
It may seem funny at first, but there do seem to be many people who really think this way, here and elsewhere
Not just funny, it is hilarious when posted on anonymous forum. It would be tragic if anyone who has some real connection with aviation would hold it to be true.
The whole point of AF447 is that it once again has proved for ignoranti that technology can not and is not designed to replace airmanship! Pilots are supposed to take over from auto-pilot anytime and fly safely if not with the same precision! Those pilots believing BS that technological advances changed flying by making basic skills obsolete are liable to get very surprised and possibly killed.
Originally Posted by ap08
And the first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge that the problem exists. Without this crucial step, the problem will exist indefinitely.
What I am seeing a lot in this discussion is another case of Carl Sagan's invisible, incorporeal,
floating dragon that spits heatless fire and lives in a garage. Airbus has a lot of issues but what's the point of inventing them where there's none?
So, gentlemen, you have elicited the reaction. Happy now? May we have reasonable discussion back?