Originally Posted by
RVDT
Not so - the master list is part of the avionics and is digital with possible failings. When it all turns to crap the warning panel is all you have left for all the really important stuff!
There is also a flaw in the warning panel on the D2. When you do a lamp test only the required lamp segments illuminate so therefore you have to count them as the unused ones do not illuminate!!
There are 2 configurations so you also have to know your particular aircraft. Don't know how that got past certification for such an important piece of equipment.
Dont think so as a C1 is basically a "B" model with Arriel 1 engines.
Lets not get started on the technical naming conventions versus commercial. There is actually no such thing as an EC145T2 although a lot of the technical data uses this term.
Just as there is no such thing as Helionix Step 3. It is Helionix Step 2 Maintenance Release 1. Yet the term is used all the time - annoying.
I hold Part 61 and 66 on the D2 and soon the D3. On the Part 66 side you take pride in getting things correct yet the technical data is littered with errors which unless you know the details it is confusing.
If you spend enough time with Airbus you realise just how dysfunctional things can be!!
well, if you loose all of the MFD (Multi Function Displays), I doubt, that you will get any new information from the warning unit.
Its actually doubled - except of one point
WARNING LIGHTS ON WARNING UNIT
AP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 4
BAT OVHT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 55
CARGO SMOKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 97
ENG1 and 2 FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 67
ENG1 or 2 FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 68
FIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 98
LOW FUEL1/2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 104
MGB OIL P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 116
ROTOR RPM (in conjunction with ENG1 and 2 FAIL) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 67
WARNING INDICATIONS (ML)
AUTOPILOT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 4
BAT OVERHEAT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 55
CARGO SMOKE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 97
ENG1 and 2 FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 67
ENG1 or 2 FAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 68
ENG1 or 2 FIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 – 98
FUEL1/2 LOW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 104
MGB LOW PRESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 - 116
the only additional warning is Rotor RPM in conjunction with both engines failed - but in that case, my eyes would be outside, RPM information gatherd by hearing.
I see your point with the lamp test, it would be better to have crossed out markings for the lights not used, instead of leaving them blank.
That there is room for improvement throughout Airbus, no question.
But which builder is without errors?