Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
I'm not sure where RH is going with the automation talk
A bad neighbor is a misfortune,but a bad flight computerized system is hell and thousand deaths. I already said that A FCS was a bad copy of the Viper.I said too that the Effective FCS had to respect math conditions and rules of observability and controllability. I added some posts ago that human gestural processes constitute a dynamic system. That human gestural algorithm can lead human piloting or human limited by "butterfly" piloting. In any case observability and controlability math rules must be respected finaly. If the bird gets a *butterfly* and IF these rules are not respected we have a bad system no matter A or B
.
My ref :
- *butterfly* is a friendly wink to theory of chaos, but I accept an other proposition
- The word "protection" must be replaced by "limitation"
- Freedom does responsibility (civil and criminal). No responsibility of pilots in trials you are claiming requests no freedom of decision of the Captain
- Operator's manual suppressed and replaced by Manufacturer's manual (Radio France-Inter yesterday ~10:20)
- Cf Declaration of Me Daniel Soulez-Larivière
- Lack of sanction against frauding French pilots I already told
- Writing of rules of sound limits in European airports to sell Airbus to ex-sovietic world and pressures on ICAO to get them