Originally Posted by marciovp
Can you make sense of this sequence of news published in VEJA?
My post crossed with your much more interesting one, marciovp.
I think one can make some sense of it - but the implications are huge.
"This sound warning played during three seconds in the accident in Congonhas ("retard,retard,retard") and then stopped. This becase the computer presuposes that if the pilot doesn´t respond to the warning, there is a reazon- an obstacle in the runway or an attepmt to go around, for example."
So far so good. Trouble is, though, that the computer doesn't appear to stop 'pre-supposing' there.
1. On the one hand, it appears to 'assume' that the pilot intends to land to the extent of allowing the deployment of reverse thrust.
2. On the OTHER hand it appears to 'assume' that the pilot does NOT intend to land in a much more serious way, by preventing the deployment of ground spoilers and the operation of autobraking.
And there is no manual override available to the pilots, especially in the vital area of spoilers.
"This would demand a radical reform in the program of FWC. The Airbus prefered only to upgrade the system."
If that's true as stated by VEJA - that Airbus just put a clearcut control system anomaly like that in the 'Too Hard' basket - this case could get very 'big.'
PS - Brazil's girls entirely deserve their success - they completely out-played the USA. I expect them to win the whole thing.