Qantas jet's plunge

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by glenluceskies

I do not believe any major commerical passenger airline is more risky than the other.

In actuality, although I am against fly by wire, I do realise that they are showing themselves to be more reliable, statistically speaking, and far more economical. This is why airlines are so attracted to them. Also, they should be less labor intensive for the flight crew (maybe there is a trade-off here tho). My only gripe is that when something does go wrong, that fly by wire is not as intuitively friendly as classical systems.

Also, until a pilot or flight engineer actually gets into the position of being a true test pilot, he/she must obey specific flight envelopes and procedures which best satisfy the safest possible mode of flight in a commercial environment. Test flight operations for post maintenance must obey specific flight envelopes and procedures too, but differ in that the envelope must be tested to ensure that the vehicle does actually meet the requirements. This means pushing a systems, one by one, to their required parameters and in some circumstances, further so as to determine its adherence to the manufacturer's specifications. Therefore a pilot who is carrying passengers is safe in the knowledge that if everything has been done correctly, he/she is at the controls of a vehicle that can operate within operational envelopes without risk of failure/catastrophy. (an example of "further" can be seen in a 'Topping Check', where altitude is gained in order to ensure that an engine compressor air is bleed to prevent compressor surge or stall...this is a common helicopter test...I've done this a hundred times, a few times with the loss of an engine. No big deal if you're prepared for it. Although we did have to autorotate onto a dirt car park of a hill-top look-out once...that was pretty cool).

Now a test pilot who is conducting true 'test flying', is something completely different. Usually these pilots and engineers test manufacurer accuracies in the aircraft type and/or modifications. I call these pilots and flight engineers the 'Scientists of the Air', because they are. The aircraft is essentially an apparatus which must be measured in all its capacities and how one parameter defines another parameter. Mostly this is only to confirm earlier static testing or engineering calculations. And still, they must obey specific flight envelopes and procedures while doing so...everything is thought about and calculated in advance...now-a-days, it is simulated time and time again before confirming in an operational aircraft, but most general aviation aircraft out there don't have simulators, so they must be tested the old way; fly it.

Until air crew can say that they have done test flight operations, then they are essentially flying a 'known' and 'tested' vehicle. There's nothing magical about it, its just a different way of operating the same machine...and fly by wire does add to the complexity, not the contrary, in that it places a wall between the operator and what is physically happening to the machine.

Cheers
Mark

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

In actuality, although I am against fly by wire, I do realise that they are showing themselves to be more reliable, statistically speaking, and far more economical. ......
Cheers
Mark

So even though you admit it's safer/cheaper you are "against FBW"

!?

BTW Airline operators get *really* upset with pilots who shut down perfectly serviceable systems ..like hydraulics...with fare paying passengers on board...just to see how the airplane compares to the simulator.

I don't glibly make these things up....Multiple hydraulic systems inoperative in a Boeing is a really bad scenario (the RAAF tried a similar stunt in flight with a B707 some years ago. All on board were killed)

Total loss of Hydraulics in the A380 is not great, but still very flyable.

Trying this in anything other than a simulator, would be asinine as best.

Sure a bit of canvas and cables has some aviation romance about it, but things have moved on since the Wright flier.

[Matt Wastell (Matt)]

Great time to see this post - I am about to get on a plane to fly to Brisbane!

[TheCrazedLog]

To add fuel to the FBW thing:

Between the Boeings and the Airbuses there are two different systems with very important differences.

Boeing:
Pilot flying -> Computer helping -> Control surfaces.

Airbus:
Computer flying -> Pilot helping -> Control surfaces.

In an airbus, the computer is flying. The computer has complete control authority and cannot be overridden, unless the three flight computers are turned off and the plane thus reverts into Direct Law (this is quite simple to do, but is a huge step to take. You'd lose so much by doing this). Incidentally, in a landing configuration and close to the ground, the computer reverts to Direct Law.

In a boeing, the pilot is flying with computer oversight. The computer can be overridden.

Now. Which is better? Well... it depends. Lets first describe the airbus computer system. Three seperate computers. Three seperate types of chips. Three seperate computer languages, done by three seperate groups of people (I think anyway). It is virtually impossible to put an airbus in an unsafe configuration: The computer will not let you. Haul all you like on the sidestick, it will not let you stall. Also, a computer will compensate and react far faster than a human can ever hope to, and within set parameter it will react the same way every time: Perfectly. It does not get flustered or distracted.

Despite all these very good advantages, the flight computers have one major flaw: When they are fed incorrect information or they hit an unknown situation, they cannot react to it. A human can.

Take a very simplistic example: All three pitot tubes freeze. The airspeed indicator will read zero. A pilot will look out the window, realise his controls still have authority and he is still flying and react accordingly.
A computer will assume falling airspeed and will react by increasing thrust and possibly commanding a down angle.
Now this is a very simple example and is probably catered for, but it serves to demonstrate the point: A computer can only react to what it is programmed to, a human has the capibility to react to the unknown. He may have difficulty, he may make the wrong decisions and contribute to the demise of the aircraft, but he still has the inbuilt capibility to react correctly.

Now on the Boeings now I understand they have computer input whereby the computer assists. Lost and engine and got differential thrust? No problem, the computer compensates and its almost as if you were flying normally.

Getting back to the airbuses and their computers, I said that they cannot be overridden. This does not mean to say that they do not give up themselves. There are circumstances where the computers say "we've had enough, we can't handle this, here you do whatever the %()#%R$# you want, just get us out of here".

(Edit: Epic wall of text!)

[Exfso (Peter)]

I do not believe any major commerical passenger airline is more risky than the other. There is a risk to all flight travel, and in the end, it is humans who design, build, test and fly the aircraft and its components. And as a passenger you accept that small risk when you board.

I wasnt going to buy into this conversation as it appears to have been pretty well done to death. Having worked in the Aviation Environment for 30 years as a Flight Service Officer, (similar to ATC), I know of one airline I would never fly with end of story, they are downright dangerous, they operate out of Indonesia, so you can probably guess. I distinctly remember a jet arriving from Indonesia into Darwin with hydraulic issues. At that time, it was TAA that were doing the servicing for that particular airline in Aust, and they had to replace a fairly minor hydraulic line somewhere in the aircraft. They did not have exactly the same part required and used what I was told by a LAME to be a very high quality piece of replacement hose, but not as recommended by the aircraft manufacturer concerned. It was meant to get the aircraft back to Indonesia where the part could be replaced properly. Apparently that aircraft came back into Darwin some weeks later with the same part still attached. This was something I got 2nd hand from a friend who worked with TAA at the time, so there may be a degree of license involved. However having said that, I had numerous experiences when communicating with that airline where they broke ATC rules drastically and in one instance departed Jakarta for Sydney and climbed to FL390 without a single airways clearance, at the same time that numerous other long haul jets were on the same route inbound to Australia. The fact that they were not in Australian airspace was probably a contributing factor, but they were approaching the boundary and we as Flight Service used to use HF radio to communicate with aircraft on international routes once they were out of VHF range, and as such we could hear all the chatter going on in neighboring airspace. IMHO, Indonesia is one very dodgy place to be flying, or it used to be, things may well have changed, and they would have needed to.
I know this is somewhat off topic but seeing it was mentioned that all airlines are basically the same is IMO quite wrong.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

So even though you admit it's safer/cheaper you are "against FBW"

!?

BTW Airline operators get *really* upset with pilots who shut down perfectly serviceable systems ..like hydraulics...with fare paying passengers on board...just to see how the airplane compares to the simulator.

I don't glibly make these things up....Multiple hydraulic systems inoperative in a Boeing is a really bad scenario (the RAAF tried a similar stunt in flight with a B707 some years ago. All on board were killed)

Total loss of Hydraulics in the A380 is not great, but still very flyable.

Trying this in anything other than a simulator, would be asinine as best.

Sure a bit of canvas and cables has some aviation romance about it, but things have moved on since the Wright flier.

OMG, I have tried to articulate my reasons for preferring classical systems over fly by wire, and you have responded in slap-stick. Thanks!

Did you not read the entire passage I wrote, or do you have selective literacy? You have conveniently left out this passage from the same para "My only gripe is that when something does go wrong, that fly by wire is not as intuitively friendly as classical systems." Then you have based your response upon my introduction...how convenient Peter!

So if I'm not mistaken, you originally said that "Total loss of Hydraulics in the A380 is not great, but still very flyable", to which I have asked you when have you ever flown, not just an A380, but any airliner without hydraulics...but you have avoided replying to this question, merely stating that "BTW Airline operators get *really* upset with pilots who shut down perfectly serviceable systems ..like hydraulics...with fare paying passengers on board...just to see how the airplane compares to the simulator."...you'll need to answer that question properly if I'm to believe your original statement. This is why I introduced passages about the differences between pilot under charter, post maintenance test pilots, and manufacturer test pilots, because I'm pretty sure nobody outside of Airbus (or under tuition of Airbus) has ever tried it before. In fact, I reckon only Jacques Rosay and his flight crew have ever performed the operation (If it's even possible).

"Sure a bit of canvas and cables has some aviation romance about it, but things have moved on since the Wright flier" Why have you spoken in extremes to fob-off my opinions about fly by wire versus classical systems? That's exactly how pilots at parties behave funnily enough.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by TheCrazedLog

...Now on the Boeings now I understand they have computer input whereby the computer assists. Lost and engine and got differential thrust? No problem, the computer compensates and its almost as if you were flying normally.
......

I have spent the last 20 years on B747 and B767 types and, and ,sorry they have no "computer assist" as you describe. It simply doesn't happen.

[Peter Ward]

OK Mark, we can take it a point at at time

Originally Posted by Nesti

"My only gripe is that when something does go wrong, that fly by wire is not as intuitively friendly as classical systems."

I disagree. With degraded systems, rather than struggling to keep in control as in non-FBW, FBW makes the push-pull bit easier, giving you more brain power to manage the failure and come up with a solution.

Originally Posted by Nesti

I have asked you when have you ever flown, not just an A380, but any airliner without hydraulics...but you have avoided replying to this question

No aviator in their right mind would want a total (flight control) hydraulic loss. I have never had one in a non-FBW type, simulated or real. Wouldn't want one either.

United Flight 232 (Soux City) had one and despite some very remarkable flying by the crew, the aircraft still crashed and burned.

Yet the A380, (a FBW type) can have this type of failure and remain very flyable....which was my point in the first place.

Most heavy (non-FBW) types have hydraulic systems with artificial feel making them no more friendly than FBW systems, hence I do not understand why you would be "against FBW" , as in both cases it is not possible (to downright dangerous) to develop/test their systems for real at high levels of degradation without serious risk of a hull loss.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

I disagree. With degraded systems, rather than struggling to keep in control as in non-FBW, FBW makes the push-pull bit easier, giving you more brain power to manage the failure and come up with a solution.

The "push-pull" may well be easier, but you've substituted it with complex flight computer issues and as we have recently seen in that case of Airbus (Air France) pitot data input issues as well...which may be beyond a pilots capability to diagnose in the heat of the moment and in time sensitive scenarios. Being able to fly 'hands-on' and forget diagnosing a computer's hissy-fit is THE primary objective during a flight issue. Let me know what airline disagrees with that I promise you I'll stay clear of them. I bet this exact issue is being addressed at Airbus right now (just remember they're French and I've worked on Mirage; they're never wrong...NOT!). Aeroflot 593 was a classic case of trying to recover an aircraft (A330) in a classical manner but what resulted was an inevitable fight between the pilot, the flight computer. I would not be surprised if the pilots of AF447 had done the right thing and let the computer do the flying when the issues occurred, the aircraft became unrecoverable for the computer, the computer then handed the controls back to the pilots during the unrecoverable state.

I don't really want a pilot to be flying with his brains, I would much prefer his flying skills, gut instinct and a good eye...as for grey matter, that's highly overrated in an emergency...just a cool head and an automatic (trained) response within a classical system is the best. Don't work the problem, work a solution to your current situation. Worry about bugs in Microsoft when it asks you to send a failure massage...coz that means that you're alive still.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

No aviator in their right mind would want a total (flight control) hydraulic loss. I have never had one in a non-FBW type, simulated or real. Wouldn't want one either.

Totally besides the point.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

United Flight 232 (Soux City) had one and despite some very remarkable flying by the crew, the aircraft still crashed and burned.
Yet the A380, (a FBW type) can have this type of failure and remain very flyable....which was my point in the first place.

As the Hstab was shredded, the only way United 232 could have survived was if the ailerons were on a separate system and that they could be run as AilerVons.

There are two issues here;
1. Total Hyd failure
2. FBW failure

In case 1, the A380 should be usable IF the failure is limited to just the main Hyd systems and the EHAs are not affected, reverting to local hyd circuit. If an aileron becomes locked (stuck valve or flight computer), and ports fluid then you'll have max throw or a fight between EBHA and EHA (EHA will win). EBHA shifts from main hyd to local hyd under electric power under main hyd failure. Both EHA and EBHA circuits seem entirely dependent upon flight computer input. If you have both Hyd and electrical failure (not likely), better pray there's a good battery and ram air generator somewhere.

In case 2, you're dead. And this brings us right back to the original FBW discussion.

Originally Posted by Peter Ward

Most heavy (non-FBW) types have hydraulic systems with artificial feel making them no more friendly than FBW systems, hence I do not understand why you would be "against FBW" , as in both cases it is not possible (to downright dangerous) to develop/test their systems for real at high levels of degradation without serious risk of a hull loss.

But they still have mechanical feedback. For instance, a push-pull tube which is hyd assist (99%) will still give good flight control feed back as there is only so much a hyd system can dampen strain and vibrations. Go Hyd off and everything weights a tonne and with near 100% feedback. Of course they introduce stick shakers and force gradients, but these can be disables during hyd off operations.

What manufacturers could look for is more hyd assist in larger A380 size aircraft, and in hyd off (failure of prim and sec), offer 70% hyd assist via accumulator/local elect-hyd systems. FBW merely looks for pilot (strain) input and provides assistance, knowing what inputs are being done by the crew, and porting hyd power BEHIND the pilots [force] input, rather than IN FRONT of the pilots input as in the case of current FBW.

Think of a CNC milling machine. If it has an image and just cuts away according to a program it will simply break the tooling. But if the mill is able to sense the dimensions of the material to be cut, rate of rotation etc, then it is able to apply the milling process in an intelligent manner. This is where FBW fails, it looks at side stick (& pedal) input. I'm saying it should look for strain within the physical linkages and get behind the pilots' actions at the actuator end AND mid stream too!

You're actually a pilot, you should agree with the pilot being in control, but as it stands, you really aren't. And you can come up with whatever computer to pilot algorithm model you like, the fact is-is that you aren't. Your inputs aren't being inputted at all, they're being analysed (assessed actually) and then inputted. I'm not saying pilots are redundant, since FBW looks for your input, but you are being handed your hat and coat on the flight deck.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

...Being able to fly 'hands-on' and forget diagnosing a computer's hissy-fit is THE primary objective during a flight issue. Let me know what airline disagrees with that I promise you I'll stay clear of them.

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.

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

Managing a scenario well, is often critical to a successful outcome...hence your comment

Originally Posted by Nesti

I don't really want a pilot to be flying with his brains, I would much prefer his flying skills, gut instinct and a good eye...as for grey matter, that's highly overrated in an emergency...

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

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.

Originally Posted by Nesti

2. FBW failure......

......In case 2, you're dead. And this brings us right back to the original FBW discussion.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

[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.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Damn right! It's the food they serve you in the plane!

[Kal (Andrew)]

So Mark, would you prefer to drive a car with Electronic Stability Program switched off or on, because if it is switched on, a computer will be making critical decisions overriding driver input in an emergency situation. Would you prefer to have it off so that the driver is 100% in control, even though statistics will prove that the driver with ESP on has a much higher chance of not wiping out in an accident?

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

If we can change this to a poll, I'm flying with Peter.

Interesting discussion...

[multiweb (Marc)]

Originally Posted by AstroJunk

If we can change this to a poll, I'm flying with Peter.

Interesting discussion...

Yeah. That's a no brainer. Sorry Mark. I'll still snipe you in the back though

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by Kal

So Mark, would you prefer to drive a car with Electronic Stability Program switched off or on, because if it is switched on, a computer will be making critical decisions overriding driver input in an emergency situation. Would you prefer to have it off so that the driver is 100% in control, even though statistics will prove that the driver with ESP on has a much higher chance of not wiping out in an accident?

Ask an F1 driver what he would prefer? My answer would be the same.

Putting a computer in charge is insanity and Airbus have proceeded along an incorrect pathway in order to rake-in inherent economies associated with electrical/electronic systems to take leading share in the aerospace market. The truth is-is that when electronics/computers work fine until they screw-up , and when they do, they fail 'big-time'.

[kinetic (Steve)]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Putting a computer in charge is insanity and Airbus have proceeded along an incorrect pathway in order to rake-in inherent economies associated with electrical/electronic systems to take leading share in the aerospace market.

With all due respect Mark, that is a mighty big statement to make without
maybe being fully informed about the complexities of the aircraft.
I think a quote from Oscar Wilde fits in perfectly....see my signature.

Steve

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by multiweb

Yeah. That's a no brainer. Sorry Mark. I'll still snipe you in the back though

I'm not fussed that you prefer Peter's argument, remember, this is a complex issue that runs deeper than what words have been written in this thread so far. But in time, you will see this issue come to the surface in the media, you will see documentaries on TV about this exact discussion and many pilots speaking up about their concerns, and believe me many pilots do have concerns. Many pilots who have been involved with a computer/pilot conflict.

The thing is-is that I have worked on classical systems for many years and conducted post maintenance test flight operations for 6 years. I have seen failures in flight and NOTHING, and I really do mean NOTHING, can replace a gifted pilot at the controls and someone competent reading to him all of the data that he needs on the way down, so he may straighten it out. You take that pilot out of the loop and replace it with machine code, and get the pilot to go look for the popped fuse (or whatever), then good luck to you!

Myself, I just wish I had a choice when I travel, as every carrier is out to save buck and is opting for FBW.

[Nesti (Mark)]

Originally Posted by kinetic

With all due respect Mark, that is a mighty big statement to make without
maybe being fully informed about the complexities of the aircraft.
I think a quote from Oscar Wilde fits in perfectly....see my signature.

Steve

Steve, that statement is absolutely true. Airbus themselves have said that it's all about economies...the other part, proceeding down the wrong path, will become more obvious over time.

Well in Oscar's statement, I guess my ignorance must come from many years of ignorant training, ignorant maintenance and ignorant flying. Must have been wasting my time then.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Nesti

Putting a computer in charge is insanity and Airbus have proceeded along an incorrect pathway .

Sorry Mark, this is alarmist rubbish. Boeing also have moved to FBW
(B777, B787) as they are also aware of significant advantages these systems offer. There is no Airbus conspiracy here.

Your suggestion that SwissAir Flight 111's demise was due to a FBW failure totally ignores the fact the aircraft was on fire, with the cockpit overhead panel melting, just seconds prior to impact. (the cockpit transcript is very sad and depressing).

(I can't help but think that's like chipping someone for lighting up a cigarette as a major bushfire is approaching)

As a pilot, there are very few things you need to do in a hurry in an emergency. Securing the flight path is a given. I have no problem with letting an automated system do that while I then figure out what to do
as a result of any failure, be it systems or software.