Originally Posted by marciovp
So, we are talking about four accidents and eight well trained and experienced pilots.
Donīt you think I have a good question?
I don't think it's a very useful question. And I'll tell you why ...
Originally Posted by Rananim
I would say thats an excellent question but many here choose not to face it and instead look the other way.Seems we have 3 camps:
a)the AB pilots who naturally dont want to see the design error
b)the resident "experts" who just love discussing the man-machine interface
c)simple folk who think its a bad idea to have reverse unless and until BOTH TL's are at IDLE.
This is an extreme oversimplification, and unfair categorisation of people.
Do you really believe (1) that Airbus pilots would not like to have the safest plane possible, and are not the most qualified to judge the interface, and (2) that "simple folk" should design aircraft human/machine interfaces? Heaven forbid!
Those who talk of the MEL and THR ABV IDLE/RETARD/continuous chime see the trees but not the woods.There can be no better or clearer warning to a pilot that TL's are not at IDLE than the denial of TR.
I don't agree.
The best post came from woodvale.How pilots tunnel their vision in a bad situation.Repetitive chimes and/or EICAS annunciations can get filtered out.However,something fundamental like the physical inability to engage TR will find a way through that tunnel vision.It has to.You wont stop without TR.It either leads the pilot by active-recall to retard the forgotten TL or at the very least enables the abort scenario.
Yes, I agree he made a good point. A CRC may indeed not be the optimal way of warning. I like the "Retard TWO!" modified FWC callout better, but that, too, may not be the best way.
You are asserting that not getting reverse thrust "has to" get through tunnel vision,
and give the flicght crew the correct clues, without giving any persuasive reason. "It has to" is not a reason. And "You wont (sic!) stop without TR" is flat wrong. There even are jet airliners that don't have TR at all.
Reverse thrust has an even smaller contribution to stopping performance than ground spoilers (I imagine an aircraft with inop spoilers would not be dispatched), so not getting reverse thrust despite selecting it is not going to help much in alerting the pilots to the real reason of their problems. Pilots may simply assume a failed reverser. (Thrust reversers are not the most critical systems, and thus are not required to be among the most reliable, as evident by not even being required to operate the aircraft).
Unless they also know the logic for not giving them reverse even if they asked for it. (Additional confusion. Another logic to learn by heart?)
Bernd