Originally Posted by Retired f4
What a silly straw argument.
Lemme help you with this:
straw man is fallacy of misrepresentation of an opponent's position. I was not targeting anyone in particular, i was just pointing that just based on outcomes, control architecture can not be considered to be causal in AF447 catastrophe as there were a) other cases of FBW Airbi that did not stall after UAS b) conventionally equipped aeroplanes that did suffer from stubborn pull into stall.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
How is your closed loop feedback ------ demand by pilot via control / thrust levers position versus effect crosschecked via instruments ------ functioning?
Perfectly well, thank you for asking.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
the PF might lack the demand (control position) and has to rely on the effect (instruments) only. The closed loop system is not available to him.
I suppose you meant PNF. Why should be there control loop for him? He is not supposed to be controlling the aeroplane, but monitoring her - aeroplane, not the other pilot.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
That didnīt go unnoticed during the analysis of BEA and is posted in their final report.
I disagree with their idea that the absence of natural horizon makes it more difficult to monitor and maintain pitch in an airliner.
Originally Posted by TTex600
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.
You make accidents where primary cause is pilot (in)action look inevitable. If the company or manufacturers have given you a bad training, it's all their fault, you are just the guy who does the dying. For Finnegan's sake, procedures are made to keep you flying even if the only envelope you know is the one your eBay purchases come in!
Originally Posted by TTex600
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.
Nice example of literal understanding. They are to be disregarded between the time you realise FD is in the wrong mode or has developed drift and your PNF switches them off. You don't really suggest you would follow the obviously wrong FD in a second or two it takes them to be switched off, do you?
Originally Posted by TTex600
So you agree that even experts are puzzled, everyone but you it seems.
To understand my reply, you need to know what HF means in this context. It is neither high fidelity nor high frequency. Technical experts were not puzzled a bit.
Originally Posted by TTex600
I've not tried to be an expert in these discussions
You've succeeded.