Originally Posted by
takata
Hi Jeff,
I wonder if you fully understood the sense of this paper. What is written is that the memory item from Air France QRH "IAS Douteuse" (in French) slightly differed from official Airbus QRH (in English) concerning the "respect the stall warning". Then Air France informed its A330/340 crews of a change after June 5th. Nothing changed in "Airbus QRH" and it is not what you wrote above.
S~
Olivier
Olivier,
Well, in the operator procedures you find the instruction to take in account stall alarms even in the case of unreliable airspeeds (AoA based), and not in the aircraft manufacturer's QRH. Strange to term it a "slight" difference since the two versions could induce two opposite behaviours for crews facing both stall alarms (and possible ECAM status messages of "risk of undue stall warnings"). Sounds also weird that there can be two "slightly" different versions of a same memory item at the same time ? the BEA report page 67 states that the two slightly different memory item were both the versions in force for the operator and for Airbus at the date of the accident. The note of Air France of the 5th of June does not seem to be to inform crews of a change after June the 5th, it is a
reminder of the procedures already in force (*). Is it a correct understanding ?
Jeff
(*) "
Sans attendre les premieres recommandations du BEA et/ou du
constructeur et sans prejuger de leur contribution a la sequence des
evenements, il nous parait important de rappeler a tous les pilotes Airbus
que..."