Originally posted by MCM
View Post
Training is always going to be limited. Its just the world we live in. If the cockpit design is such that it can't be learned thoroughly in the equivalent time that another manufacturers cockpit can be learned, then there's got to be questions about its practicality in the modern world.
We favour conservatism because it is not old aircraft types that are having incidents, its the new systems with the new technology that are!
And keeping in mind that the commitment to digital flight control and FBW has been made across the industry. That added training goes along with it.
Lets be realistic here - airline pilots are going to become less skilled as airlines push for lower wages and the shear demand for pilot numbers increases. Cockpits DO need to become more idiot-proof, because we're going to be putting lower and lower standard pilots into these aeroplanes, whether you or I like it or not.
So what you're saying here is that we've created a brand new type of aeroplane control system, and then blaming the training and the pilots for not understanding it?!
How is this 'lowering expectations'? I find this a bizarre sentiment.
That might mean their original expections were unrealistic or misguided. It may turn out that a physically informative control column is simply using more of the human senses and is therefore the wiser choice (as in the 787).
But, from an objective standpoint, all the information needed to have clear situational awareness is present in the A320 cockpit. The thrust levers don't move but the TLA donuts show you where the power setting is (I agree with Gabriel that they should be servo-driven). You have to look rather than feel. The trim wheel moves silently to indicate the stab trim. You have to look rather than listen (but I think this is also true of the 777 and 787). The ECAM provides enhanced situational awareness if you have the training and discipline to use it properly with CRM procedure (mainly through the PM). You have to learn to fly in a less physical, more cerebral way. This is true of many professions today, all in the name of efficiency.
I'm merely asking the question: did Airbus overestimate the human pilot's ability to reliably concentrate and the commitment of the industry to adapt to new technologies? Because modifying them to emulate old technologies would be a statement that they had. That's what I find interesting about all this.
And I'm not saying it would be a bad idea to go back to the yoke if that is what is needed. I'm not an Airbus conservative either. Unlike all of the AIrbus hang-wringers out there, I just prefer to have an informed opinion.
Comment