CONF iture
Same reply that 1) The conservative approach would be to make sure that automation stays out of the way when data are identified as unreliable.
I can see the appeal of that (as I am very much a fan of stick and rudder flying). I think henra's response answers some of the "why" the system is as it is.
TTex
Make sense to who, or better said, to WHAT?
In this accident we have an aircraft designed to be flown by computers that suffers a GIGO computer issue that convinces the computers to give up on their job.
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.
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.
I ask again, make sense to who or what?
Forgive my english/grammar, Texan is my native language and i'm in a hurry.
I understood you perfectly.
It makes sense to whomever bought the plane with the objective being a smooth ride in a modern airliner. I will suggest to you that, for the most part, as evidenced by most of the 228 casualties being strapped in, that even as it fell from the sky it was a smoother ride than one might expect for out of control flight. (Then again, many of those strapped in might have strapped in, and then dozed off, a buffet here or there not noticed, be it turb or stall ... )
The Airbus flies already very well under Direct Law, and manual trim is part of that direct, just like the Cessna, or the Airbus 310
The only question I'd have on that is: how often do you get to practice that?
Lyman
Easier to descend than climb.
Gravity assisted flying! What will they think of next! :-)
Sorry for that, I could not resist.