[QUOTE=FDMII;9198758]I strongly disagree with this assessment. My reasons for disagreeing so strongly are, I have flown these aircraft A320/A330/A340 as well as all other manufacturer types and while these aircraft are emminently dispatchable, sometimes the MEL is invoked and we must deal with ECAM messages as-dispatched.
The A320 & Airbus types and Airbus philosophy have been around since the late 80's and is, (or should be) well-known and well-understood. Crews simply cannot carry out their own, made-up procedures on any types of transports any more. I'm sure the B777 and certainly the B787 will be the same.
The FCOM, the QRH (Abnormal Ops) and the MEL are the guiding documents by which the aircraft is operated. Deviating from them is done under the captain's authority and responsibility if the safety of the flight is known to be at greater risk than not deviating from these documents. Otherwise it is expected that crews will adhere to the books. They should be in possession of sufficient understanding fo their aircraft to know why such cockpit discipline is paramount, even in trying and annoying circumstances as these must have been.
Resetting of both FACs in the air is prohibited by the Computer-reset section of the QRH Abnormal procedures. Here are the relevant excerpts:
What would have been the outcome if the RTL had not failed. I would suggest it would have been a no event. The causa sine qua non.
The RTL failed and the crew were duly informed the protection it offered was no longer available. The following best describes that which became operative thereafter.
"It is found that anything that can go wrong at sea generally does go wrong sooner or later, so it is not to be wondered that owners prefer the safe to the scientific .... Sufficient stress can hardly be laid on the advantages of simplicity. The human factor cannot be safely neglected in planning machinery. If attention is to be obtained, the engine must be such that the engineer will be disposed to attend to it." Alfred Holt 1877.
My question is why make a system to protect against human misuse which then when not available renders the whole unsafe in the hands of a human operator. Which then brings me to pose the questions, what would the outcome have been if this was a pilotless robot aircraft and how would the computer controlled robot would have resolved the issue of flying without an RTL. Perhaps the robot would not have had any need for an RTL system. In which case the RTL system was designed solely for protection against the human operator and it must therefore follow that the weakness is the human operator. Not the sort of conclusion that any one of us would wish to come to I would have thought. But there again it is always easy to blame the pilot, especially if he is dead.