Originally Posted by
TTex600
Uh, you're making a distinction without a difference. The Airbus can NOT be flown without the computers.
Neither can the B777, and it would be a very difficult task to do the same in the B767 and B757. I apologise if I misunderstood your intent, but from my perspective it read that the FBW Airbus models were intended to be flown under automation at the expense of the flight crew.
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.
Actually in the Birgenair case, the B757 FMS continued to try to fly it, pulling the pitch attitude up to the FMS limit - in that case on the very edge of stall.
The pilots were left without the vaunted computer protections...
Which they should have been trained to deal with...
while you and others lay in your warm beds dreaming about how the system really does allow pilot full control.
You tell me how the system did not allow the AF447 crew full control. The aircraft stalled because the system was programmed to give the PIC everything he or she asked for in the event of a systems failure.
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?
Because the late professor who instructed me on software engineering and reliability (who, it must be said, was a dyed-in-the-wool sceptic) banged the Airbus FBW case into our heads as the first thing he did and - despite the fact he visited Toulouse and told us everything he saw - was holding their feet to the fire until his dying day.
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.
Not all humans - unless you have evidence to the contrary.
And if you honestly think I'm pro- pilotless airliners or that I'm some kind of advocate for full automation then you clearly have not read my posts. What bothers me is the repetition and propagation of press scuttlebutt as fact. Computers are great at the dull and repetitive tasks that keep an airliner on course, but they're singularly lousy at being able to deal with situations outside of the norm.
[PS: Spinmeister? If anything I'm anti-spin! Here's the deal - the idea that the A320 was the first step towards fully-automated airliners? Spin. The idea that the Airbus FBW protections would routinely override human pilot input? Spin. The claim that a certain A320 on display "thought it was landing"? Spin. ]