Originally Posted by
roulishollandais
but the pages 9 and 10 showing the excessive long time 10 years to stabilize the FBW accidents (not enough testing of flying software) and the decreasing level of pilot (accidents' rate x3 from 1994 to 2013) in not limited A/C.
As I said before, you're reading that wrong. For one thing there have been zero accidents in which the FBW software was a major factor since the A320's introduction over 25 years ago. Every new generation of jet has had a greater number of accidents and incidents in the early years of operation.
I'll say it again - the dotted line in the graphs indicates that less than a million flights of that type were made, so the ratio will appear higher if the number of accidents is divided by that lesser number. This is why the line is dotted, because the statistical baseline for the graph has not yet been met.
This also applies to the dotted line referring to second-gen jets - the ratio is skewed by the minimum required number of flights (a million) not being reached - not because piloting abilities without assistance have been reduced as you seem to think.
Again - the other main reason the second-gen chart climbs slightly before dropping below a million flights is because older aircraft start to have more technical issues as they age, and this is compounded by those older aircraft being sold on from major airlines to smaller operators, and to developing countries, where the safety infrastructure is not as rigorous.
[EDIT: @roulis - I've already explained how the points you make about software aren't really valid when talking about the Airbus FBW system. I'm not going to repeat meself, but here's a link to the first post :
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/52803...ml#post8237990 ]