"Airbus has developed a specific warning when one throttle is set to reverse while the other is above idle. This warning generates an ECAM warning "ENG x THR LEVER ABV IDLE", a continuous repetitive chime (CRC), and lights the red master warning light. This new warning is implemented in the FWC standard "H2F3".
"A Service bulletin will be issued very soon on this subject."
Why did Airbus design and develop it if it was so inadvisable, Bernd?
I honestly can't see what harm it could possibly do. On the other hand, I can see how it might do a great deal of good. We only have fragmentary evidence from the CVR and FDR, but what evidence there is suggests that the pilots never actually knew what was wrong; their effort to get the spoilers to extend by cycling the switch strongly suggests that they thought they had a spoiler malfunction.
The Master Warning Light going off, with a clear and specific warning, might very well have saved a lot of lives.
In my view the Taiwan Report points to a clear area where the design could be improved and made more 'fail-safe,', in that currently, even if only one throttle lever is actually retarded, the 'Retard' warning cuts out. An even more straightforward mod. would be just to have the warning stay on until both levers are retarded; but the Master Warning is probably the better approach.
Tony
PS Sorry, crossed with your next post. You're surely not suggesting that we extend all runways at all airports to Heathrow or Kennedy standards? If a given aeroplane needs a longer runway it's certification should presumably be changed? What we are looking at here are four incidents involving the same (very unusual) mistake being made within quite a short timescale in a single marque of aeroplane. Surely a revised warning system is well worth trying?
Last edited by RWA; 15th Sep 2007 at 13:42.