![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Flaps_50! writes:
Because the computers don't know actually know the relationship between yaw, airspeed and allowable rudder input/structural load and they are not required to. They can be programmed to know this. And much of the reputation of Airbus rests upon its implicit and explicit claims that their heavy computerization of their flight decks somehow makes aircraft safer. But if the computer isn't even programmed well enough to prevent something like this, how can it be making the airplane safer? Neither do most pilots when they step on the rudder pedals. Think about it... It would be tough for a pilot, but not for a computer. There's a fundamental contradiction between claiming on the one hand that computer-enforced limitations on control movements can prevent structural damage, and then claiming on the other hand that computers should not be held responsible for that enforcement. Either they protect the airplane or they don't. If they are only creating the illusion of protection, then they need to go. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
To blow or not to blow... | Dallas | Piloting | 50 | February 15th 08 12:57 PM |
Another blow for Airbus | AJ | Piloting | 1 | December 9th 06 08:35 PM |
oil blow out IO-360 | Robert M. Gary | Piloting | 18 | July 17th 06 04:44 PM |
oil blow out IO-360 | Robert M. Gary | Owning | 18 | July 17th 06 04:44 PM |
Blow-Proofs | jls | Home Built | 0 | June 2nd 04 05:02 AM |