Originally Posted by Machinbird
Dozy, The difference clearly is that with the A system the PM has no real idea of the control input history that led to that point of the flight. With the B system, it is available by just resting your fingers on the yoke or visually.
This difference didn't prevent the pilots of conventionally equipped aeroplanes from pulling into stall or Airbus pilots successfully negotiating the loss of airspeed information. However, your claim, which many a PPRuNer would readily agree with, is indeed useful as it reveals not what is wrong with Airbus controls interface but what potentially dangerous habit many a pilot has acquired: checking just the controls movement to see what the aeroplane is doing. Now this might be newsworthy to some: control or thrust levers positions are only demands, which absolutely has to be crosschecked against the instruments to see what effect they have on the aeroplane! That you need to have closed loop feedback via instruments is something trained from first second of instrument flying and is as true on C-172 under the hood as it is in A380 flying through clouds. Ask the last crew of the G-YMMM about the discrepancy between thrust levers position and delivered thrust, you won't be able to ask those who pulled and pulled, yet they could not bring the nose up nor prevent the ground/sea impact.
Originally Posted by TTex600
If the habit to fly pitch and power were as "trained" in Airbus training as is constantly checking FMA for correct mode and values ; and as is a slavish focus on satisfying the ECAM master, maybe we would have no accident to discuss.
1. habit to fly pitch and power is not trained on any Airbus course. It is understood anyone starting the course is very proficient in instrument flying. Preface of any Airbus FCOM refers.
2. when dealing with simple, even multiple failures, ECAM gets it right so following it is well advised, however it is unintelligent computer so it doesn't relieve the pilot knowing very well what he is doing when performing ECAM actions and why he is asked to do that. I suppose "slavish" feeling comes from the pilots too lazy to know their aeroplane properly so can not evaluate whether what ECAM tells them makes sense. I am pretty sure explanation how you figured out there would be no accident to discuss if it weren't for ECAM will be pretty interesting read.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Is it your position that every system is acceptable provided that the operator is "trained"?
No, this is your straw man argument. Not every system is acceptable. Those well designed, tested, certified and field proven stand very good chance of being so. That they can nevertheless turn out to be lethal in unfamiliar hands is just the way our universe is structured. And no, you don't get familiar just by adding the flight hours in the logbook or by hand flying whenever you feel like it. It's about knowing what your aeroplane can and can't do and how to return her into the heart of the envelope, when you have unwittingly chased her towards the edge, or beyond.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Next, you can't have it both ways. Which instruments are primary? Flight directors and FMA's, or attitude and power? The "it could never happen to me" crowd was quick to inform us that the ill fated AF447 crew needed only to fly pitch and power, and now you inform that FMA is important. [/sarcastic bad attitude]
Not much sarcastic but I'll concur it's bad. Let's ignore the last part and assume post was made in good faith. In aviation it often is not case of "either-or but" "and...and...and". Pilot must always recognize when flight director is leading him along the optimal flightpath and so it is to be followed (99.99% of the time), or when it deviates so it must be disregarded. For those doubting the benefits of attitude flying, it is beneficial to remember FD displays attitude command.
Originally Posted by TTex600
It gets a bit annoying to have it implied that I the Bus pilot am an outsider to an airline pilots job, but this is a (basically) anonymous forum so I wont try to convince you otherwise.
"Trust me, I'm a pilot", eh? Ad hominem is still invalid argument, even when it is self-inflicted.
Originally Posted by TTex600
focusing solely on the infalibility of his/her machine.
Nope. This machine was not infallible, none is. It failed in utterly manageable way. Why minor fault resulted in catastrophe was puzzling even for BEA HF experts just piling up theories on top of each other.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Explain why the stated on the CVR that they didn't understand what was happening.
Because they did not understand what was happening.
Originally Posted by A-3TWENTY
If the sim really reproduces the airplane behaviour , the AF447 was is deep stall and they would never recover.
It does not. Covered many a time why it does not. Scrap the rest of the sentence.
Originally Posted by A-3TWENTY
I had never heard about trimming down the airplane.So the crew didn`t for sure.
They could have pushed forward and let the autotrim do the job.
Originally Posted by A-3TWENTY
Your opinions.
Unpublishable.