auraflyer
Quote:
Quote: Load protection would have done What ??
Is there a related problem: I'm getting the impression that when things go seriously amiss, will the computers trying to hang on too long, and in the process make such extreme inputs, that when they finally drop and hand control back, things are already much further gone than they should be?
Auraflyer - In a word - Yes
What we have is the reverse of the Sourcerer and the Apprentice.
In normal life, when the Apprentice screws up, the Master Tradesman has to perform the rectification, and the apprentice gets a kick up the arse and "learns".
What we now have, in the bus philosophy, is the system is the annointed Master Tradesman, that is so much smarter, quicker, better, and all knowing, than the apprentice pilot.
When the Master Tradesman screws up, makes a mess, then compounds it into a bigger mess, and then gives up, it throws it all back onto the apprentice pilot with the instruction:-
"OK son, let's see how much you have learned so far. Show me how to fix this problem, and save our arses, before we loose the contract."
Put bluntly, the real responsibility for these "make it worse - then give up and kick off" automation facilitated needless disasters - should be laid fairly and squarely where it belongs - at the front door of the mentoring and sponsoring certification authouity - La Direction de l'Aviation Civile.
Amen to that. It has been my argument since 20 years.
Being called a Airbus enemy for so long, i only opposed the stated above. It would take a minor programming change to rectify the system. But it would admit something ...... and therefore we will cynically witness another Airbus c-u.
Did you notice the absence of the usual Airbus lobby-suspects' trivial contributions on here? It's getting ever more difficult to find excuses for the system with the similarity of these accidents.
But you have pointed out the real responsible body in your contribution.