Originally Posted by Nod
I am not sure they are "primary sensors"?
- hang on a moment - shall we all take a breath? I thought the brilliance of the AB technology was sold (for the 'concierge', of course) on the fact that it was 'unstallable' in normal flight? Unless I have this wrong, is this protection not based primarily on AoA readings?
It is not beyond the bounds of your HF arena for a 'normal' crew to screw up the speeds with 2 out of 3 sensors screwed. What then? 'Check GW?
. I'm not sure many of us would have reacted correctly to that warning
No, as long as sentient beings remain in the cockpit there should be as many clear indications of which bricks have fallen from the castle walls as possible. At least (hopefully) an 'AoA disagree' or similar warning might have made an average crew stop and think about testing the AoA protection.
Therefore to relate the design in this area to normal ops is stretching things.
- agreed, but AB are hung on the scaffold of the sales brochures, I'm afraid. How many other little glitches are there lurking in the wires? We are still groping in the dark on the Air France Airbus crash. Was that another one? As I said in post #1 on my other thread
One (task) is for the manufacturer/regulators/operators to ensure something usable remains, and not to be seduced into glittery-eyed fascination with how clever everything is.
- I don't think we are there yet. Where is the warning that tail trim is 'excessive'? Where is 'Hey fellow, this is 'Hal' - I am not sure what is happening with the AoA probes - please check for me - I may be confused'?
Give a crew the necessary information. Let's make sure EVERYONE understands the system is not 'perfect'.
This goes for all 'modern' aviation technology, by the way.