I've never heard of a union asking its members to take a pay cut....

[MPwannadecentincome]

Remember the mid-air collision in a virtually empty sky over Germany a few years ago killing a plane load of Russian kids. Had the Russian pilots done what the computer told them - the kids would be grown up by now.

Modern Airbus's will override the manual controls (i.e. the pilot) when the computer thinks it's about to be splattered and take corrective action.

Airbus override controls are fly by wire - no wire no fly.

Its all about getting the balance right, as I said before, you are only really safe with an experience pilot with manual flying hours under their belt. Such pilots IMO deserve their 100K.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

My point is the computers on board did not help the situation....

Paris airshow crash - the computer stopped the pilot from its flypast over the runway - it thought "I'm landing, so I will land!"

There are so many versions of what happened in that case that I can't take any version (including yours) as gospel.

Airbus not turning in the direction expected - well its fly by wire innit!

Not familiar with this one so I have no comment.

Air France crash - ok no conclusive evidence - but the airbus was designed to fly at that height better on autopilot than manually (according to yesterday's Sunday Times), the fuel trim etc is optimised for the plane to fly more efficiently at a different center of gravity, however here it is in a storm and out pops the auto pilot because the pitot (yes that is the correct spelling) is giving misleading readings, leaving the plane in the hands of surprised pilots who now have no chance as they have to retrim the fuel to get the center of gravity back.

My point is - a poster said they would prefer to be in the hands of the computer - I think its better to be in the hands of a good experienced pilot, unfortunately there are less of these around as the computur does most of the flying these days. The hero of the Hudson river had years of manual flying experience behind him, today's youngster's do not.

I had heard a story recently that some small airline in Europe (I can't remember which) the captain asked the co-pilot to land the plane. The answer that came back was "What? No, that is not in my job description, the computer will do it"

The Sunday Times (if I've understood you correctly - unfortunately I haven't read the article) seems to be suggesting that the plane moves the CofG automatically in flight by moving fuel around. This is undoubtedly true and it's not unique to Airbus. What you (and possibly the ST) seem to be further suggesting is that this is done in such a way that it makes the plane inherently less stable and that the autopilot is then better at flying it.

That's just not right - commercial airliners aren't like those vector thrust fighters that are inherently unstable, and almost all newspaper journalism I've ever read on aviation is very badly informed.

Just as one example - I did a search for Sunday Times articles on Air France 447 and found this reference to the loss of another A300 "The turbulence - and the Airbus pilot’s attempts to correct for it - sheared off the A300’s rudder and vertical stabiliser. Without them the plane was doomed, and 265 people died." This (the cause) isn't correct - the plane can easliy withstand the wake turbulence from a 747 (which is what it flew into) - but the pilot's extremely heavy use of the rudder caused the failure. Interestingly, there was no computer intervention here, even though the pilot was exceeding the viable use of the rudder. One could argue that the plane shouldn't let you do stupid things - but then you're back to the argument about whether the computers should try to save you from yourself - and you can't have it both ways.

As for experience, many of these "computer jockeys" fly for fun during time off and know very well how to fly a plane. They are all checked regularly in the simulator for exceedingly rare events like autopilot disconnect/failures and as I said, when it happens is when they really earn their cash.

The combination of improved technology and better training and standards is actually making flying safer.

As it happens, I like the reassurance of having a real pilot up there, but I know that statistically, I'd probably be just as safe with a computer flying the plane without manual intervention.

[MPwannadecentincome]

The combination of improved technology and better training and standards is actually making flying safer.

As it happens, I like the reassurance of having a real pilot up there, but I know that statistically, I'd probably be just as safe with a computer flying the plane without manual intervention.

I tend to agree