PJ2,
I wanted to come back on
your earlier comment
The "correct" information would be
AOA DISCREPANCY ECAM MESSAGE obtained the same way the system did already proceed to reject one of the ADR, so no additional complexity.
As you know, the following ECAM MESSAGES already exist :
HDG DISCREPANCY
ATT DISCREPANCY
ALTI DISCREPANCY
Or even that one which is very nice :
FLAP/MCDU DISAGREE
They don’t load the pilots, do they ?
They are just a great help to let the pilots know something is wrong.
AOA DISCREPANCY would follow the same path, even more necessary that the system can take an option based on the different AoA readings, and that option, as seen through Perpignan, could be a wrong one.
The associated ECAM action would be pretty simple : Get your QRH out and check your speed limits. If they match the speed tape, just fine, but if they don’t, adjust !
I agree that in line ops Valpha prot and Valpha max don’t matter, but S, F or VLS do matter. You are in serious unknown territory if 20 knots below your real S speed your slats are still retracted.
The philosophy is the following :
It is not sane that a system takes an option without mentioning it especially when it is a known fact that that option could be a wrong one.
Let the guys know , they will thank you for that.
In Perpignan, the guys and the plane would be still around as such an ECAM MESSAGE would have put a STOP to the obvious lack of preparation.
PJ2, in my view "to keep it simple" is to tell the truth but not to hide under the carpet, and if they have to get rid of one ECAM MESSAGE before inserting the
AOA DISCREPANCY, they should keep the
ENG MINOR FAULT ... for the PFR.