I am very uneasy with the terms used in the discussions around the Airbus
when it went its way to the bottom of the Atlantic. That is as a power pilot I feel that way. I read, for example, the computer decides the rate of change of the elevator when commanded from the cockpit. And that in 2 seconds nose down stick, the elevator actually travels from 30 degr nose up to 20 degr nose up ! Should there not be a "panic button" that, when pressed, makes direct control inputs (or the computerised equivalent) possible.? The aircraft was flying fully nose up elevator (stick input as well) at low speed and, I would have thought that when a pilot pushes fully nose down, the bloody elevator WILL travel fully nose down in QUICK succession.!!!
In my days of flying I had to use full controls on many occasions, both in normal and in spin or landing round-outs. Why must modern pilots be deprived of this when the sh"t hits the fan, as was the case with AF447 ? Is it possible that we rely too much on statistical probabilities and accept a certain failure rate as normal ? Sure, high speed aircraft and high weights etc play a part, but should the "feel" of flying manually not be exactly that in cases of emergency ? Control loss in the military and civilian aircraft do give a pilot in most cases the option to hit the silk ! Is it possible that (computer) engineers and software experts
have gone too far in taking control of controlling an aircraft ? And test pilots play by the company book so as to keep their well paying jobs ? Just asking.................
