[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Better steer clear of QF then. During complex emergencies we are trained to use the auto-flight system as much as possible..."unload" yourself so you can tend to the problem.

Will do.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

We can all fly engine out approaches etc. if we couldn't we'd be shown the door.

What's wrong with gliders, I like gliders!

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

...has me gobsmacked. Would you like a surgeon to have "a good pair of hands" but have no idea what he's cutting??!!

You've misinterpreted what I've written. I'm talking about in an emergency situation I would prefer pilots to run through exactly how they are trained to respond (prior to FBW and on non FBW types). This means focusing on the flying an not on the damn computer...but as you said, you don't have a choice anymore, because it's now doing the flying for you and you've been retrained to spend your time figuring out what version and build it is that's playing-up, and if you can download a patch...or whatever the scenario happens to be that's taking you away from flying.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

A professional aviator needs excellent systems knowledge, without which he/she is nothing more than a professional passenger. It really does help to know how the fuel system works (saves gliding to the Canary islands), what inputs the ADC's are getting (767 lost in South America), what happens when you depressurise the Yellow (or 1-2-3-4) hydraulics or de-power a #3 electrical bus. etc. etc.

I wasn't talking about normal operations, haven't yet, I was talking about in an emergency situation where time is critical. "overrated in an emergency", I believe I wrote that in plain english.

There is an investigation going on right now which is looking at this exact relationship; the issue of distracting pilots from hands-on flying in an emergency instead of diverting their attention to systems trouble shooting which might not even be rectifiable. They are investigating the likelihood of avoidable accident because of this change in doctrine and, glass cockpit issues also. And they're not conspiracy theorists or crack-pots, they're seasoned aviation technology specialists and wait for it...aviation lawyers. They're looking to reverse the trend.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I'm trying to think of a case where this could happen. Failure of six independent systems while not impossible is *extremely* unlikely.

No, not likely, but possible. In the last minutes, Swiss Air 111s fire may have done just that.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Control cables/hydraulic lines can also be severed/freeze/rupture on non-FBW types. (I've personally had a runaway trim on
a Metroliner)

Of course, but we're talking about failures on FBW and how pilots respond versus failures and responses on classical types.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Again unlikely, but I'll still go to work tomorrow with this knowledge and that Engineering (at least in Oz) do a splendid job in maintaining the airframe and systems so that none of the above happen.

That's true however, I also know first hand that maintenance is currently walking a fine line between serviceability and budget. That was one of the reasons I quite aviation 15 years ago. Now money's even tighter.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

As for "not being in control"....
It is true in FBW pilot inputs are filtered but in doing so, the A380 FBW system provides high speed, low speed, bank & pitch, g-loading and many other flight protections...making it *really hard* to stall or stress the airframe in any way at all.

Again, you are trading-off flying for ease of flying...do you even feel like a pilot anymore?

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

In many dynamically unstable military types they have to be FBW, otherwise you'd simply loose control.

But they have ejection seats.

I know what unstable is, I fly RC aerobatic planes and competition gliders on the neutral point...it's demanding, controls are sensitive and pitch s very unstable. These days it is possible to mix all manner of flight controls together for assistance against balance points. Although expensive and crashes occur, you can play around with setups that you cannot with real aircraft...you get a feel for what can and what cannot be achieved.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

As to whether this is preferable in a public transport aircraft to a non FBW system.... that will literally allow you to tear the wings off....I'd be happy to let the fare paying punters decide.

That's just it, they don't get to decide, and what's worse, they only hear how wonderful new technology is...until of course we see what comes out of the recent spate of Airbus issues...and the concern is growing.