RAT 5,
I like and agree with your analysis of the current automation problems in the aircraft industry as a whole.
You suggest, however, that a/c like the FBW Airbuses are designed to be operated into large hubs with autoland facilities. It needs to be said that the A320-series is well capable of doing anything that, say, the B737-200 can do, and do it better in most cases.
Non-precision approaches and/or visual circuits are easier to fly: with or without AP; with or without A/THR. Manual thrust is a delight on the Airbuses, partly because the FADEC gives such accurate responses to small thrust-lever movements. Used as designed, GS-Mini is a treat in gusty wx. FPA is, as you probably know, terrific for non-precision approaches: with or without the FD; with or without the AP. (In the airliner field, these were all innovations of the A320 in 1988, although the A310 had pioneered a basic FPA in 1983.)
Back to the thread topic! Quote from vilas, re the A320 accident at Bangalore in 1990:
"They were coming off VOR approach converted to visual approach. But because one side FD was on FMGS went in OP DES with thrust at idle. Pilot tried to maintain visual 3 degree flight path with falling airspeed. Obviously they were not waiting for alpha floor but did not monitor speed assumed ATHR in speed mode.There were no warnings. Same as SFO but being an airbus alpha floor triggered and then they themselves triggered TOGA."
Thank you for now reiterating my brief analysis in
my post #14 yesterday (final paragraph), to which you took exception at the time. No need to apologise for changing your mind!
