snom390

4 ms·

1.
by snom390 12y ago
I don't know anything about the PPA, but that's not really a good comparison. The taxis that were without insurance were presumably working around the clock to get it sorted out, and had some communication with the PPA to let them
2.
by snom390 12y ago
Agreed, and that was one of the recommendations in the report. AFAIK current commercial flight simulators aren't designed to accurately simulate the aircraft outside the normal flight envelope, so pilots can only simulate approach to s
3.
by snom390 12y ago
It should have been abundantly clear, however it's not hard to imaging that if you're flying 99% of the time in an airplane that makes it _impossible_ to stall it (ie. pushing back all the way on the stick will not allow it to sta
4.
by snom390 12y ago
I think what was pointed out in the report was a lack of training on high altitude hand flying. The pilots got plenty of stall training, but mostly in take-off / landing scenarios (which is realistically when you're most likely to
5.
by snom390 12y ago
Well, there's a reason: Cost. Certifying and retrofitting force feedback controls on existing Airbus planes will be very expensive, and since the current safety record is so good, it's probably not going to happen unless another a
6.
by snom390 12y ago
They do have a switch to override controls on airbus planes. But of course, that's not much use when both pilots are in panic mode. AFAIK they could see how the controls were manipulated on the FDR, and I think both pilots actually app
7.
by snom390 12y ago
The decision to standardize controls and use fly-by-wire was made for practical reasons. The Airbus philosophy was to use fly-by-wire to make different airplanes of different sizes handle the same, reducing the requirement for pilot trainin
8.
by snom390 12y ago
I'm not saying I agree with the decision, just that you have to put it in context. It would be interesting to go back and see why they chose that design. Although the failure was basic, and they certainly lacked hands-on high altitude
9.
by snom390 12y ago
No, I don't think it boils down to that. It was just a one of many different design decisions (and philosophies) that has provided a stellar safety record for Airbus planes right up to the point where it contributed to an accident. Rem