Originally Posted by
dream747
On newer MSNs (or I think at least the units fitted with Sharklets), dual FAC failure does not result in Direct Law after the landing gear is extended (ref FCOM). Can I assume that the roll characterics for the same failure on different aircraft is very different in this case, one being in alternate law roll rate, the other being in direct law. How confusing considering that we are dealing with the exact same problem.
could have something to do with the envelope E function being also in the FMGC. The earlier models had the E part solely in the FACs. Unlike the 330 which have it only in the FMGEC. I was told by airbus it was too big a design change to remove the FAC’s so it’s in both on later models.