Originally Posted by
Cool Guys
You have changed the subject. I have not studied the A320 development enough to be able to spout off datum's about it.
I haven't changed the subject, I was simply responding to this :
Originally Posted by
Cool Guys
In industries that produce equipment that can kill people if it goes wrong, those who are careful about adopting new non validated technologies pose far fewer risks than those who accept new technologies without proper evaluation.
with the assertion that the fourth-gen Airbus flight deck layout and FBW systems were very carefully evaluated before adoption.
Who is disputing its fine safety record?
Roulis, it would appear.
The subject of our original thread drift was about posters’ comments that you nullified using your dubious statistical evidence based on a very small sample base.
Not at all - I wasn't trying to prove anything conclusively via stats, merely backing up my own assertion with multiple anecdotal incidences where connected "conventional" controls did not make a difference, in spite of what those who prefer that layout would claim.
The only conclusion one can draw from your comments is you think these posters are reactionaries. We have differing views.
I think there's a reactionary tendency with some of those posters, yes - but I was speaking more generally. When the A320 was introduced, there was a distinct group of the piloting fraternity who made various claims about how the passive sidesticks and FBW technology were designed specifically to "take pilots out of the loop", and would eventually cause serious safety issues by that same design. Not only was the first assertion untrue, but also neither has come to pass. That's all I'm saying.