GearDown&Locked
There are obviously more pros than cons regarding automation. IMHO, the big issue here has two main components:
- lack of understanding of the system behavior in adverse situations.
- Indulgence in risk assessment.
And, as most of the pilots have been saying in this thread, it all boils down to
training.
IMO, the emphasis has been put on the protections rather than the details of the degradations of the systems :
-From "normal Law" and its subsidiaries / auto trim on the THS
-to "alternate law" / auto trim on the elevator
-to "direct law" - and why the further degradation from "alternate" to "direct pitch" with the landing gear extension .../ manual trim, well announced on the PFD.
Still IMO, the protections are quite easy to understand as they are linked to the regulation-required flight envelope and some extreme attitudes... and if that sort of knowledge is easily mastered, we come to the conclusion that
understanding the system philosophy is the premise to knowledge of the system details.
Problem is how do you announce clearly the WYSIWYG ?
At this moment, the degradations show only in the
disparition of the info that one gets in "normal law", i.e the bank limits, the speed tape...etc...
Maybe, a clearer message like "ALTERNATE F/C LAW" or "DIRECT F/C LAW" could be more easily understood than "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" or "MAN PITCH TRIM ONLY".
The problem lays on the builders assumption that the failures will occur in the course of the managed routine flight...(and who could blame them as they designed an "airliner" ? )...We have all the time in the world to assess the problem and act accordingly... But things get a lot more complicated in the course of a low altitude emergency and this is where a more assertive annunciation is required.