bsieker
I don't know about procedures at different airlines, but in the FCOM a Level 3 Warning, such as the warning we're talking about (including CRC, Master WARN light and Red ECAM text), means:
In the A310 FCOM2 Emergency Procedures Chapter, the PROCEDURE INITIATION instructes:
- No action shall be taken (apart from audio warning cancel) until:
* The appropriate flight path is stabilized
* Normal procedures are applied
* At least 400 feet above the runway, in case of failure during approach, take off or go around,- A height of 400 feet is recommended as a good compromise between the time required for flight path stabilization, and the initiation of the procedure without excessive delay.
- In some emmergency conditions, providing the flight path is stabilized, the PF may initiate the emmergency actions before reaching 400 feet AGL.
* Appropriate command by the PF.
________________________
This may give you a broader idea of the way pilots are supposed to respond to emergency warnings near the ground, and the prioritisation of tasks during flight. This relates to the "gateways" concept, and may reinforce the reasons why I think introducing that kind of warning could be less effective than desired.
Austrian Simon
So my solution to this would be: always adhere to the last command given by the pilot.
Very long post, but very good idea, there is no simpler than that, if the pilot is there to decide, systems should be designed in that line.
DozyWannabe
(...) would these be the same pilots who drive 747s into one another? Or possibly the pilots who deploy spoilers while airborne? Maybe even the kind of pilots who let ther kids fly the plane for a bit?
Alternatively you could be dealing with the kind of pilots that prevent accidents (...)
You've got it all very *black and white* uh?
I like to think that, few exception made, pilots who have accidents are just normal pilots, like we all like to think we are.