We all know the old saw about Airbus being dangerous because the protections are inconsistent between control laws. What that misses is that knowing the reversion laws on an Airbus is as fundamental as knowing the stickshaker on a Boeing. When a Boeing pilot feels shaker, if that pilot does not instinctively think 'stall warning, watch the pitch and power', that pilot is not a pilot. When an Airbus pilot gets the indications of alternate law (which include a master caution) and that pilot does not instinctively think 'hard stall protection lost, watch the pitch and power', that pilot is not a pilot.
Each methodology has strengths and weaknesses. Boeing pilots get a more physical feedback than Airbus pilots (though buffet is still quite felt). But in downbursts or critical terrain conflicts you are much better off in an Airbus. Overall, in almost 100% of flights, a protected aircraft is the safer one.
But, it the pilot is not a pilot, then good luck.
Each methodology has strengths and weaknesses. Boeing pilots get a more physical feedback than Airbus pilots (though buffet is still quite felt). But in downbursts or critical terrain conflicts you are much better off in an Airbus. Overall, in almost 100% of flights, a protected aircraft is the safer one.
But, it the pilot is not a pilot, then good luck.
Comment