Orval Fairbairn wrote:

In article ,
James Robinson wrote:

"vaughn" wrote:

"The pilots of an Air France jet that crashed into the Atlantic
Ocean two years ago apparently became distracted with faulty
airspeed indicators and failed to properly deal with other vital
systems, including adjusting engine thrust, according to people
familiar with preliminary findings from the plane's recorders."

An unfortunate rush to judgement on the part of the media. The
aircraft appears to have had major systems fail, and the pilot is
blamed for not being able to deal with it. There is even some
question that Air France trains the pilots on how to handle such
problems.

Maybe system failure or inadequate training is more to blame, and the
pilots were simply the victims?

Scuttlebutt is that a Northwest crew faced a similar problem (in an
Airbus) but reverted to basics and flew the airplane, rather than try
to figure out the automated stuff. A good friend used to fly Airbusses
for American, but he did not LIKE them! He would rather fly Boeings.

There have been similar incidents in other Airbuses and Boeings (777)
where the pilots managed to keep control of the aircraft. What was the
difference this time? Was it inadequate training, confusing cockpit
alarms and displays, the lack of outside visual references? Blaming it
entirely on the crew at this early stage is premature.

As for preference, it's a little like people's views about Ford or Chevy.
There really isn't that much difference between them, but there are
passionate defenders of both brands. There are many pilots who fly both
brands who prefer Airbus. The relative safety records for thousands of
aircraft of both types are quite similar, so there is no systemic reason
to complain about one over the other.