PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - TAM A320 crash at Congonhas, Brazil
View Single Post
Old 2nd Oct 2007, 13:28
  #2638 (permalink)  

Sun worshipper
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 494
There are other ECAM warnings that you react to immediately - Engine Fire below V1 for example. I know that you don't perform ECAM actions immediately, but I think the same principle is at work.
And we already have the Retard warning to remind us of something we do every flight...
Interesting discussion.
Back to the Bible : "Any alarm below V1 calls for a rejected takeoff procedure" (specifics as per SOPs ).
One doesn't have to read anything, one has to react first by initiating an RTO.
The actions are done - once again - when one has achieved a stabilised, controlled path.
The very same principle applies to a catIII autoland : *Alarm !-GoAround !, Flaps 3...etc...*, we'll see the specifics later !
The main objection I have with this new warning - believe me, I'm not alone -is that it is against all the failure management that we have been trained for.It is an exception in the rule and as such, leads to confusion of interpretation, especially during a phase where we don't need any.
As a matter of fact, you seem to agree with me when you write :
It will need suitable training to highlight the fact that it exists - IMHO by instructor demonstration as you should not ask a trainee to make such a mistake on landing
(my stress).
As for the *Retard* call, don't you think it has become a "corruption" of the original intent of the designer :
Back to the training manual " Flare shoul be initiated at 30 ft..." If it's done, one would not hear the aural. Of course, some clever souls have found that it is perfectly timed to flare / reduce thrust with this *CUE* in order to achieve a soft landing...Problem is : when I hear it on a 321, I know that this landing is not likely to be a soft one.

Last edited by Lemurian; 2nd Oct 2007 at 13:32. Reason: spelling
Lemurian is offline