"Blaming the pilots, or flatout stating that one design pholosophy is better than the other, is just ignorant."
I work with safety, I study it.
The Airbus was poorly designed. You want to have forcing functions in the hardware, not depend of operator training, the "software" in safety terminology.
Airbus should have had the proper design philosophy so that the forcing function was in the "hardware", eg, the yoke of Boeing.
The poor choice of having independent joysticks brought the plane down.
Not certain why the FAA, which does know better, approved of the Airbus design.
That alone is worthy of a study. Was it politics?
In summary, safety guidelines mandate putting safety in the "hardware" of real forcing functions and not "software" -- training. That is the reality. 447 crash occurred because of poor Airbus design and the FAA for approving this design that goes against safety principles.
I work with safety, I study it. The Airbus was poorly designed. You want to have forcing functions in the hardware, not depend of operator training, the "software" in safety terminology. Airbus should have had the proper design philosophy so that the forcing function was in the "hardware", eg, the yoke of Boeing. The poor choice of having independent joysticks brought the plane down. Not certain why the FAA, which does know better, approved of the Airbus design. That alone is worthy of a study. Was it politics?
In summary, safety guidelines mandate putting safety in the "hardware" of real forcing functions and not "software" -- training. That is the reality. 447 crash occurred because of poor Airbus design and the FAA for approving this design that goes against safety principles.