NOT true. Airlines will make equipment selection based on a wide variety
of factors, including the prejudices and impressions of management at the
time. A two-pilot crew will be selected over a three-man crew, for example,
because it is cheaper to operate--not necessarily because it is safer.
Back when the manufacturers allowed customers to customize their cockpits,
it was unbelievable the amount of junk that got thrown in. SAS, at one
point, had a 747 with no fewer than 7 CDIs in the cockpit.
Other optional equipment have included items as diverse as navigation systems
which never get used (LORAN as a backup for INS, for instance) to airborne
integrated data systems (AIDS) to crew bunks on airplanes which will never
fly longer than 8-hour sectors.
The selection of such "accessories" is often no deeper than the
justification for their need by the prejudices of the chief pilot at the
time.
The "finance" side of things can also influence items in strange ways. The
selection of an INS manufacturer, for instance, can be cemented by political
and economic factors. Engine selection can be influenced by the
manufacturer's desire to lock a big client. The small fish frequently will
not buy until a big fish does. So the big fish can often get extremely
sweet deals--spares, maintenance, etc. totalling millions of dollars. And
if they get in early enough, sometimes the little fish do, too.
Cultural factors also make a difference. Some cultures are very gung-
ho on high-tech and "progress" in general. Those of us living next to
toxic waste dumps (and who enjoy a free media which can report the existence
of such sites) rapidly adopt a more pragmatic attitude.
Those of us who have a background in computer technology also tend to be far
more skeptical than engineers or pilots.
And there's also the ab initio carriers. Even a bad design can be a good
choice if an airline intends to standardize its entire fleet that single
design. Saves a TON of money.
To NOT acknowledge these factors is to be extremely naive.
If you desire a selection of articles detailing Airbus' methodological
approach in using technology, I recommend Christopher Solon's "Airbus
Industrie: A Competitive Analysis," which was published as an MBA thesis
at the University of Texas at Austin. Many are drawn from the business
press; however, if you have access to a good bibliographic reference
system, search for Bernard Ziegler and Jean Pierson. In particular, note
the latter's focus on technology and the rather strange perception of the
need to achieve market parity with Boeing at all costs.
> To finish this pontification, I have a sense of deja vu with most of the
> negative arguments - haven't we heard them all almost exactly a year ago
> under the thread "Handflying" on Bluecoat ?
Ah, yes. That was the one in which someone claimed it was unsafe to
hand-fly an approach in good weather. Simply bizarre. Either the pilot
is part of the flight equation or he isn't.
--
Robert Dorsett Moderator, sci.aeronautics.simulation
rdd_at_netcom.com aero-simulation_at_wilbur.pr.erau.edu
ftp://wilbur.pr.erau.edu/pub/av