X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:18:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mailout1.pacific.net.au ([61.8.0.84] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c3) with ESMTP id 745400 for lml@lancaironline.net; Sun, 02 Oct 2005 18:59:21 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=61.8.0.84; envelope-from=domcrain@pacific.net.au Received: from mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (mailproxy2.pacific.net.au [61.8.0.87]) by mailout1.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j92MwZjl009334 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:58:35 +1000 Received: from CRAIN (ppp06A0.dsl.pacific.net.au [203.17.44.160]) by mailproxy2.pacific.net.au (8.13.4/8.13.4/Debian-3) with ESMTP id j92MwWVJ021257 for ; Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:58:34 +1000 From: "Dominic V. Crain" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Non-Certified Aircraft X-Original-Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:58:31 +1000 X-Original-Message-ID: <001701c5c7a4$cf2db3d0$0202a8c0@CRAIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5C7F8.A0D9C3D0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5C7F8.A0D9C3D0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Thanks Scotty, Yes - I think you have misunderstood me. I flew the 320 from launch to my retirement a couple of years ago. I LOVE technology. But new technology chucked at pilots as it was at launch of the 320 left most in no doubt there was inherent protections which simply went misunderstood. Why? Because the engineering background schools were made as brief as possible and pilots were not given lots of information because they were told -"you don't need to know". The Airbus manuals were the worst I had ever seen. In fact, a former colleague of mine told me Airbus ran a school on "how to read and amend the manuals". The pilots who dumped the first one and gave the pine trees a crew cut didn't understand the technology, and I maintain it is a little crass just say "pilot error". Sure it was, but what led to it is the real question. As for ATC and its problems with the 320, get used to it, and make your decisions on avoidance earlier, and don't move to Asia. No one there hand flies the Airbus. AP on at gear up, and disconnect 100' above minimum - visibility 10,000 miles! Now - so Marv doesn't go crook a me again, that's it from me. Regards Dom ------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5C7F8.A0D9C3D0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Scotty,

Yes – I think you have = misunderstood me.

I flew the 320 from launch to my = retirement a couple of years ago.

I LOVE = technology.

But new technology chucked at = pilots as it was at launch of the 320 left most in no doubt there was inherent = protections which simply went misunderstood.

Why?

Because the engineering background = schools were made as brief as possible and pilots were not given lots of = information because they were told –“you don’t need to = know”.

The Airbus manuals were the worst = I had ever seen. In fact, a former colleague of mine told me Airbus ran a = school on “how to read and amend the manuals”.

The pilots who dumped the first = one and gave the pine trees a crew cut didn’t understand the technology, = and I maintain it is a little crass just say “pilot error”. Sure = it was, but what led to it is the real question.

As for ATC and its problems with = the 320, get used to it, and make your decisions on avoidance earlier, and = don’t move to Asia. No one there hand flies the = Airbus. AP on at gear up, and disconnect 100’ above minimum – visibility = 10,000 miles!

Now – so Marv doesn’t = go crook a me again, that’s it from me.

Regards

Dom

 

------=_NextPart_000_0018_01C5C7F8.A0D9C3D0--