Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
Is it your position that every system is acceptable provided that the operator is "trained"?
Originally Posted by Clandestino
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.
How is an airline pilot supposed to "know what your airplane can and can't do and how to return her to the heart of the envelope"? We are trained in simulators and kept in a certain limited flight envelope during that training.
Quote:
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]
Originally Posted by Clandestino
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.
I'm not faking the bad attitude.
But let us continue. One of Airbus' cardinal rules, at least as I was taught, is: "follow the FD's, or turn them off. Never fly through the FD's." Now you try to tell us that there is a time for the FD's to be "disregarded". Please cite your reference.
Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
"Trust me, I'm a pilot", eh? Ad hominem is still invalid argument, even when it is self-inflicted.
Where did I say, "trust me I'm a pilot"? I said that I am an airline pilot and an Airbus Captain and I get annoyed when others post that I am an outsider to an airline pilots job. I also said that I won't try to convince you otherwise. That is somewhat the opposite of "trust me". The Ad Hominen appears to be emanating from your corner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
focusing solely on the infalibility of his/her machine.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
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.
So you agree that even experts are puzzled, everyone but you it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
Explain why the stated on the CVR that they didn't understand what was happening.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Because they did not understand what was happening.
I'll give you that one. Good answer. Now tell us why they didn't understand. You apparently already know exactly why this happened so tell us why they became confused.
Finally, you said that it is understood at the beginning of Airbus training that trainees are instrument proficient. Maybe so, but airline Airbus training beats that out of one quite soundly and in short order.
For that matter our initial tng and recurrent training is almost entirely focused on FAA Appendix required maneuvers. I will go so far as to suggest that an entire generation of pilots has been trained with the assumption they possess a skill vs verifying that such a skill is possessed.
To anyone still reading, I apologize. I've dealt with "super pilots" all my career. There is always one in every ground school who knows just how many light bulbs a ALSF II holds. They know the amperage draw of every tube and the exact sequence of gear retraction. They are quite annoying to those of us who are just "average joe" pilots. Obviously, we elicit the same feelings in them.
I've not tried to be an expert in these discussions, I'm more interested in shining a light on modern systems, the entire organism, that are becoming more and more pilot unfriendly. It's almost "startling".
