Originally Posted by TTex
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
In this accident we have an aircraft designed to be flown by computers
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Not so - the Airbus FBW series were intended to be no more reliant on automation than any other contenporary type.
Uh, you're making a distinction without a difference. The Airbus can NOT be flown without the computers. I specifically said computers. You changed my words to
automation. Thanks but I can write for myself. You're little tendency to do such is becoming tiring.
Originally Posted by -TTex
that suffers a GIGO computer issue that convinces the computers to give up on their job.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
See Birgenair for an example of what happens when the automation does not know when to give up...
Why? I'm not arguing that point. The pitot's iced up, therefore Garbage In, and the
computed airspeeds turn to Garbage Out. Subsequently the computers give the airplane (which they can no longer fly) to the human. Leaving the human to deal with it.
Originally Posted by TTex
Which leaves the pilots with a system designed to be flown by computer and they now have no computer or at least not all of the computer.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
See my first reply. The system is not designed to elevate the computer over the pilot(s) and never was.
I make no claim that the system was designed to elevate the computer over the pilot. Regardless, that is irrelevant. The pilots were left without the vaunted computer protections while you and others lay in your warm beds dreaming about how the system really does allow pilot full control.
Originally Posted by TTex
BUT, it still wants to be flown like it is a computer because only PART of the computer system gave up, the rest is still working and it only knows computer sense.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Again, no - it wants to be flown like any other aircraft, with the caveat that the trim is automatic. In such circumstances, the only thing that needs to be remembered is that the trim is affected by the PFC inputs - if sustained for long enough.
You just won't give up will you? IIRC, you claim no connection to Airbus, AirFrance, etc, but you have made claims in this very quoted post to know the intent of the design. How do you know?
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
If these pilots went straight from instrument rating to ATPL - and their ATPL experience consisted entirely of Airbus FBW types - then autotrim is the norm. The habit of trimming manually grew out of technical limitations of aircraft of the postwar period - it does not necessarily follow that later designs should mandate manual trim when the flight management automation disconnects.
All true I assume. Except that your little toy computers don't seem to be able to replace humans and humans would appear to prefer a speed stable airplane.