XPost: alt.disasters.aviation, rec.aviation.piloting, rec.travel.air 
 XPost: rec.travel.usa-canada 
 From: sylvia@not.at.this.address 
  
 Pete wrote: 
  
 >>But Molin didn't know he was putting more pressure on the tail than 
 >>it could bear. Why he didn't -- and who's to blame for that -- is the 
 >>subject of a bitter fight between Airbus and American. 
 > 
 > 
 > I thought that was one of the main advantages of fly-by-wire systems, 
 > to eliminate truly stupid actions of pilots.  Sounds like Airbus shares 
 > a lot of blame for the crash.  It's like an auto maker made a car that 
 > sheared off its wheels if the steering wheel was turned too quickly, 
 > and the maker's response was to tell drivers, "Don't do that!" 
  
 Having systems that positively prevent the pilots from flying outside 
 the design envelope is a twin edged sword. On the one hand, it prevents 
 them breaking perfectly good aircraft. On the other, it also has the 
 potential to prevent them rescuing otherwise fatal situations. 
  
 There have been incidents where airliners have been stressed well 
 beyound their design limits to recover from extreme upsets, and the 
 passengers and crew have survived to fly another day, even if the 
 aircraft had to be scrapped. 
  
 Maybe you just need a big red "GO-FOR-BROKE" button for those cases 
 where flying according to the book is guaranteed to result in a 
 premature meeting with the ground. 
  
 Sylvia. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)