Originally Posted by
roulishollandais
puting Airbus (B the son) against Airbus (H the father)
All due consideration - what the heck does that statement even mean?
but a wrong analysis has been done by some megalomaniac political activists, ... seeing - without enough correct analysis of the fourth function - in increasing possibility of digitalised systems, the unhoped occasion to destroy the supremacy of flying crews organised in Unions - supposed to be dangerous "CGT communists" or "WWII terrorists"
I'm sorry, but that's just utter rubbish. Aviation technology has been evolving at a fairly consistent pace since the days of the Wright Brothers. Digital technology made its way into aircraft control systems via the space programme - usually first with military technology, then filtering down into civil applications.
Just as the move from sextants to radio beacons and INS technology obviated the need for a dedicated navigator on the crew, so did the advance in terms of automated systems monitoring make the FE position a thing of the past. This was not a political move - it was simply that the third generation of jetliners (i.e. widebodies) had a set of ancillary systems so complex that they were pretty much at the limit of what a single human being could effectively monitor and operate. With future jetliners only getting more complex, the only viable option was to look into automating operation of, and rationalising feedback from those systems.
It was the French SNPL who tried to make it political when they attempted to take on Airbus over the lack of an FE station on the A300 - apparently they came off worse and have never forgiven the company.
NB. The A300 was *not* a FBW aircraft.
The dutch roll is a significative exemple : it was taught in the former time, "romantic [attachment to the ] days of yore "- ie. "Hands off" on DC8 - and the bad analysis of the cockpit oganisation with that FBW forgot it.
Modern aero science and aerofoil design have tended to reduce the likelihood of aircraft developing dutch roll characteristics. Early jetliners suffered more from it because the phenomenon took some time to understand.
Read the KC-135 report... until in flight destruction of the plane.
The KC-135 is a 707 airframe, and therefore an early design with pronounced Dutch Roll characteristics - which should have been taught on that type.
I have not yet heard of a FBW generation airliner that developed a Dutch Roll, but if you have please let me know.
AA587 is another exemple of that lost M inside the cockpit and lost Basics.
I thought it was due to improper application of a wake turbulence recovery procedure which was not appropriate for that airframe.