Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Safety Concerns
You would be welcome to quote me if I have ever criticized FBW … but do you only understand the difference between FBW and protections ?
The protections are part and parcel of the FBW system if we're talking about the traditional separation between FBW, which relates to computer-assisted control, and FMS, which relates to a computer controlling the aircraft directly and is in effect simply the latest generation of autopilot.
Stability protection was the whole purpose behind the first generations of FBW anyway, as the military aircraft in which it was installed were inherently unstable and needed constant computer correction to maintain flight.
I don't think there's a single incident where the protections have caused a hull loss - at least not when there hasn't been a major malfunction.
Where in the report, is it said that the protections took over to prevent the 'green' Sullenberger to stall ... Please quote !?
Er, no-one was suggesting that... you made that one up on your own.
To be in DIRECT LAW would have helped Sully
Disagree strongly. Sullenberger had no need to place the aircraft in an attitude outside the protection boundaries, and I believe the protections were a useful backstop - a last line of defence against, say, a gust strong enough to cause the aircraft to bank - in much the same way as they've kept the wings level in earlier incidents.
In fact at no point has Sullenberger even hinted that the aircraft did anything other than what he asked of it (besides the obvious double engine failure due to birdstrike) and the link you provide only goes to your supposition in an earlier thread - and like it or not, the fact that you have an axe to grind with Airbus is well known.
Anyway, as I understand it the protections allow for up to 60 degrees of bank if the pilot commands it - much more and you risk a spiral dive.