Are older experienced pilots, who don't trust the fly by wire computer, more dangerous than

[Savannahmann]

16. The problem is that the exchange of information is very poor.

Look at the Air France Airbus crash. The co-pilot was reacting instinctively. He wanted to go up, because down was death. The relief co-pilot who was sitting in the captain's chair was still trying to figure out what was going on. The aircraft went into a stall, the relief pilot saw it, and said go down. The co pilot with his hand on the stick kept pulling back. In a Boeing Jet of the old days where the actions of one were duplicated on the other pilot's controls, everyone would have known instantly that the stick was all the way back. The relief pilot could have taken over, and said. My aircraft I've got it. But because you have to ask the guy what he is doing, and you don't know what he's doing while you're trying to figure it out you die.

Look at the Airbus A-380 engine explosion of Quantis. The pilots spent an hour acknowledging all the failed systems from the engine failure before they got to find out how the plane would react to control inputs. It took an hour to get to start.

The computer is really good 99.9% of the time. But when that .1% comes up you need an experienced pilot who is aware of the situation, and understands what the plane is doing, if not why.

Look at the difference between a survivable incident that seems like a death sentence, and an accident where the death sentence was written because the pilot was confused by the conflicting information.

Don't get me wrong, Boeing's planes have had computer issues that led to death too. Bergainair flight 301. A blocked Pitot tube caused conflicting alarms to go off. Overspeed which tells the pilot that the plane is in danger of flying apart in mid air. Then the stick shaker which tells the pilot that the plane isn't flying, but falling in a stall. You can't have both. So the computer is screaming at you to slow down, and the stick is shaking violently telling you as a pilot you must speed up. It's dark, and you're still trying to get a grasp of the problem and what needs to be done to correct it.

The problem with the computer is that there is always a situation that the computer hasn't been programmed for. Then like the Air France crash in the middle of the Atlantic. The computer throws it's hands up and says you fly it man, I'm out of here for now.

While the Pilot is being a computer software troubleshooter trying to figure out what is going on, like the folks on the Tech Support hotline who are asking you a dozen stupid questions. "Have you plugged the computer in? Does the outlet have power?" The plane is not flying, it's crashing.

In short. I don't think the problem is that the pilots don't want the computer flying. I think the problem is that when something goes wrong, the pilot is spending too much time trying to fix the computer, instead of remembering he has to fly the plane. Imagine you go from casual and calm sitting relaxed to alarms, flashing lights, bucking turbulence, and conflicting information on little screens all of which is demanding you attend to it first. It's very confusing, like walking into a disco with the strobe lights going from a Zen Garden. It takes precious seconds for you to start to get a grasp of the situation, and then if you mis diagnose the situation, you're going to cause a crash, instead of saving the plane, and the people.