I love the smell of false equivalency in the morning...
Originally Posted by
Gretchenfrage
Do you want to join the dw-camp that admittedly have vaste knowledge of Airbus systems, but feel entitled to be in a rightful position to belittle pilots who disagree and criticise this system.
Says who? There's no belittling going on here, simply a reasonable request that the vocal minority acknowledge that they are just that - unless they can prove otherwise - and that they answer questions put to them honestly.
The opinion of a professional pilots union, even french, are to be taken extemely seriously in terms of safety, any other approach is biased and puts the author into a somewhat shaded light.
Given that this particular union's motives are reasonably considered somewhat suspect in terms of objectivity, Chris's scepticism is not only reasonable, but also logical. Given the 29 years (5 of which pre-date the introduction of Airbus FBW) of opposition from factions within this union, it's a little rich to accuse others of bias in this matter.
It is time to accept that too many parties ask for a closer look into the Airbus design. The bipartisan comitee from the 90's (i can't remember the title), an article of your homonym the much regarded Robert Scott, a comparative article in the Swiss aviation publication Cockpit and even Sullys contribution, that's too many professionals who ask for the very same corrections
This is a thoroughly false assertion. The naysayers are, and always have been, a minority - no matter how vocal they have been. If the "bipartisan committee" you refer to is the IFALPA ADO group, then the non-binding resolution dates from the '80s - not the '90s - and is due for a re-appraisal soon (according to current member Capt. Terry Lutz). Capt. Sullenberger's view on the matter amounted to little more than a commentary - he certainly did not call for a change in the systems design.
notwithstanding the many contributors on pprune.
There are at most maybe 10 contributors on PPRuNe who hold a view on the matter comparable to yours (and who make it their business to zero in on every Airbus thread to make their viewpoint known). They may be consistently vocal, but that does not indicate a consensus on the matter - not even slightly.
I am tired of all the smokes amd mirrors that are set up to take the attention away from these critics.
What smoke and mirrors? The "Airbus-sceptic" position has been repeatedly challenged with cogent arguments from parties that include as many pilots as non-pilots. Some parties among the sceptics have repeatedly promised new evidence and yet failed to deliver. Neither you nor anyone else among the sceptics has been able to prove your position is held by a majority of pilots, let alone whether that position is objectively correct.
I am just as tired of being cried down by people who have not operated the system themselves, or those who have operated only this very system. Some of us have been priviledged to fly the other major competitors as well and no longer silently accept to be disregarded.
And yet I can recall clearly posts by pilots on here who have openly admitted to missing the relative simplicity and reliability of the Airbus system, having transferred to other types. I repeat - no-one, least of all myself, is trying to disrespect you for the position you hold. On the other hand, if you try to portray your position as reflective of a majority of pilots without supporting evidence, then don't be surprised if you and your fellow sceptics are challenged on that point.
Where there's smoke, there's a fire and in aviation we tend to take fire seriously, even if it's only a warning, don't we? I hope we at least agree on that.
Thus far there is no smoke (in the form of objective data) suggesting Airbus FBW is any less safe than the alternatives available. None. Neither you nor anyone else is capable of wishing such data into being, no matter how much you may want it to be so.