I don't know about TAM or marcio's friend's employer but a software change, initiated by AI, finds its application in all the fleet within a period of one month, as each aircraft goes to its A or B checks.We have 150 planes.
As a matter of fact, the only two major changes -or differences - in the fleet are 1/-about the arrival of crystal screens instead of the CRTs and 2/-a modification in the braking system of the 318 which is now being introduced as well to the new entrants in the fleet. Sorry, I forget 3/- the fuel system of the 319LR.
How come the TAMīs plane did not have the new software that would keep warning the pilots that the TL was on climb?...
I presume that *pane* means *failure*.
If that is the case, You get a *Retard* warning.
Yes, failure... Yes you get a retard but only until the other engine is placed on reverse... Then it sounds and looks as everything is fine...
Having a second reading of the letter, the only explanation that comes to my mind is that someone just imagined the CGH accident with the #2 T/L at idle -meaning an exoneration of any pilot error, but putting the blame on a faulty TLA input to the ATHR system
I wish I could bring the author of the letter to answer to these considerations...I may even try. But isnīt there a chance, unlikely as it could be that this could happen? And...my God...the pilot is trying hard to brake the plane. putting motor in reverse and...the computers interpret this as him wishing to fly?... At least the computers could have a clear and loud warning about this conflict no?... Just let it go?...