PJ2/takata
From one of PJ2's posts in the past.
As we are aware, the AD that was released on December 22, 2010 states,
"However, in some cases, the autopilot orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command.
In order to prevent such event which may, under specific circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition, this AD requires an amendment of the Flight Manual to ensure that flight crews apply the appropriate operational procedure."
1. If the "alert" I was asking about is this abrupt pitch command, then takata's response does not satisfy. This goes back to basic upset and UA training, a different road we've traveled more than once in this thread.
EDIT:
takata, if I may misquote Sir Joseph Porter, KCB, pray don't try to patronize me.
IMC Flight: pilots are supposed to watch their instruments and notice any change of monitored values which are all related to each others: temperature, altitude, airspeed, pitch, thrust... even to ear or feel "how" they are flying (turbulence, buffet...) and have a good feeling if everything looks ok or if something is turning wrong.
Given the hours I spent teaching instrument flying, thanks so much for that.
Alerts are supposed to catch their attention only if their situation awareness is low because they are distracted by something else.
Uh, no.
A key function of a cockpit alert is to inform the pilot of a change of state beyond normal, set, or expected parameters. See my mentioning a chip light up there, or a fire warning light. That isn't a matter of a distracted pilot not monitoring the internal gears or the firewall, it is a matter of identifying a condition that may require immediate attention beyond normal scan and activity. (I have typically seen alerts are coded with different colors, to help with "immediate" or "pretty soon" or "we can take our time with this one" classes of malfunctions, but that will vary with platform and design philosophy.)
Sometimes, its a small "Off" flag on a radio instrument. Other times, a blinking light.
Tell me, do you design applications related to ergonimics?
2. AD assumption seems to be that previous FM's were deficient.
3. I'll let it go at that.
EDIT: interesting patent description, for those interested, per the link alluded to a few posts up, about a back up system.
United States Patent Application: 0110071710