Originally Posted by
Clandestino
That's not the way things work in the real world. Whether message is understood largely depends on receiving side too. Manual explains it very adequately for someone who will later go on and try it in aeroplane.
In your own words.
It's the place in manuals where "needs to know" meets "unable to understand".
Suggest you learn what a training audience is. Your cavalier assertion, underlined, is at odds with good training methodology. Caveat: if your assertion behind that line is that one or two of the three in that AF crew were unworthy of certification and unable learn this oh so complicate thing, but became regular crew at AF, that is another matter. Is that your position?
Your point on the dubious percentage of retention of whatever training was indeed received by the flight deck crew in AF 447 is not entirely masked by your failure in argument. As you noted previously, a significant number of other crews had similar problems and sorted things out.
If Aırbus wrote "maintains vertical flightpath" instead of "maintains 1G corrected for pitch up to 33 deg bank", already high number of confused manual readers would increase even more.
In training, you first learn it in the book and other ground based instruction, then these days you seem to try it out in a sim, and then later you may experience it in an aircraft. Or you may not be permitted to try it out in the aircraft. Reasons for that vary.
So why did Airbus made the system that is so difficult to describe? To make it simple to operate!
Your logic failure is highlighted in bold. That cause and effect you assert is neither necessary nor sufficient. Making something simple to operate does not require it to be difficult to describe. Note: your assertion comes across that it is somehow necessary to make it too hard to understand. If that wasn't your intended meaning, then perhaps what you meant to say didn't come across.
Enough carping, thanks for the usual.