Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Dozy, I don't care that you wish to nitpick the analogy.
That's a little harsh in my book. It's not a case of "nitpicking", it's a case of promoting understanding of how the systems are intended to work as I was taught. If I get something wrong through lack of specific knowledge or lack of line piloting experience, I'm happy to respect that input, put my hands up and apologise. But if people stay stuck in their own mental trench based on an opinion that doesn't reflect reality, then we'll always just keep going round in circles.
I am keenly aware that AFCS and AP systems have depth and range of features.
This isn't about depth and range of features though, it's about the ethos behind the systems design - which seems to have been significantly lost in translation, hence all the rubbish about beancounters and intent to sideline pilots, and as such bothers me greatly.
That is the core of my point, and it is my position that the maintaining of a professional level of standards is a HUMAN not ROBOTIC responsibility and task. It shall not be delegated.
And the systems were designed with that in mind. The alpha prot and alpha floor features were designed to fulfil two primary requirements. Firstly to allow the pilot to make aggressive control inputs in an emergency while keeping the airframe stresses within safe limits, and secondly to provide one last line of defence when things turn CATFU'd
HAL is a metaphor for letting the robot, of whatever complexity or advanced design, be in charge.
But that's not the case - the pilots are always in charge of the systems. Autopilot and autothrust can be disconnected just as they can in any other type. If a pilot or pilots come over time to rely on the automation too much, that's not a type-specific issue, it's an industry-wide one.