Mxsmanic wrote:
Except that this isn't true.

Do deny that airliners are fitted with artificial feel systems?

Because it's true.

Why?

The obsessions with sensation and control feel, issues that are highly
specific to certain types of aviation (such as small aircraft). The
preoccupation with VFR and VMC over IFR and IMC. The cluelessness with
respect to complex avionics and navigation systems. The acceptance of engine
failures as an unavoidable fact of life (most airline pilots go through their
entire careers without ever seeing an engine failure). And so on.

I still fail to see the specific examples I requested, but rather your
opinions and interpretations instead.

Also, do you feel that engine failures are such a rare occurrence that
they should be deprioritized in training and emergency procedure
(keeping in mind that vast number of reasons that an engine might fail)?

Nothing prevents them from studying to reduce their ignorance.

Ah, but even then they would have to say that they have merely studied
the surface issues, and still yet have no direct experience.

See an Airbus.

Seen, noted, observed wing dihedral, question remains unanswered.

So I've noticed, but that is their prerogative.

Ah, so you DO re-read your posts?

The reason for using an active system is that it improves maneuverability.
The drawback is that the aircraft has a tendency to depart from controlled
flight if the computers fail. That's Airbus. It's not Boeing (as far as I
know, with respect to civilian aircraft).

What maneuverability would be required? Certain posters here would have
us believe that civilian jets are hardly capable of the turns they make,
let alone any kind of extreme evasion; more to the point, why design
systems that fail catastrophically? Why not use a passive design that
cannot fail in any kind of practical sense, and which always returns to
center?

Sharing knowledge should be its own reward.

Can we list the antithesis, that suffering speculation is its own torture?

There is no need to enumerate them. Others can do their own research and
learn for themselves whether or not I'm right.

You could at least do the courtesy of leading them in the right
direction, since you consider this a service to the public. The listing
of sources is a time-honored tradition in any kind of academic or
educational capacity (to wit: theses, or indeed any kind of research
paper); I don't expect formal formatting, but even an informal list,
perhaps?

Why would anyone trust a name on a screen?

Why would anyone trust words on a page?

Which vernacular?

The one to which I was referring, within the present context, with
accompanying explanation and dissertation.

No, they are independent.

You /ARE/ familiar with the term "dichotomy", correct?

I leave verification as an exercise for the reader. And if I seem to have
real, first-party knowledge of a topic, that may well be correlated with the
fact that I am often right.

See the above sources. If you have practical first-hand experience,
by all means validate your evocations with a qualifier, so that people
(again, your deserving public) may more readily distinguish between
research and anecdote.

TheSmokingGnu