Originally Posted by
Australopithecus
we were discussing the stall warning on take-off Hans, not the opposite AF447 case which was a different scenario that was always going to result in a stall. I am sorry that you dislike my tone, and I am sorry to have employed understatement by writing “useful” when yes, it should have been mandatory to have three independent alpha sources.
Stall recovery has evolved over the years from trying to power out of it while loosing minimum altitude to the current positive and deliberate reduction in pitch (and hence, it is assumed, alpha). The stall warning on take-off case isn’t currently addressed, and a tiny AoA disagree message, if fitted, surely wouldn’t be the key to detecting a nuisance warning.
Thanks.
Yes, definitely agree that B idea of crew alerting needs work. Cannot switch off the Stick shaker even after positively identifying the problem, tiny little AOA disagree in the corner of the display. It might have been okay in 1967, but it is not today, and when they put the big screens in the NG it should have been required to change the overhead as well, and install some sort of EICAS. Every other B product of that era is vastly superior as far as cockpit design is concerned. They put out the new B757/767/777 around the same time. The biggest one: the B747-400. Same type rating as the -300 and look at the cockpit:
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-di...Boeing-747-400 (look at the overhead panel!!). There is no justification, and when "designing" the MAX the FAA should have stepped in and said no.
Having said that, and having read the Lion Air report, there is plenty of butter to pass around. It took the FO 4 minutes to find the MEMORY ITEMS IN THE QRH (!!!), while talking to ATC about headings and altitudes. Training & checking (because I don't believe it is just a training issue) needs to improve big time.