Originally Posted by
BOAC
I am now reeling in a state of shock to find that there are not just 2 'Alternate Law' programmes but at least 5 (Post #1311) and I am wondering how on earth a human is supposed to work out wtf is going on - or perhaps he/she isn't?
As far as the pilots are concerned, the most important thing to know about Alternate Law, the same as with any aircraft that has suffered damage, is to remember that this is no longer a normal day at the office and that you must bring your "A" game. The fundamentals of Alternate Law are the same in all reversions, the variations depend on which systems/sensors have failed, same as in a regular aircraft.
The computers are designed to give the pilots what they ask for in this mode - no more, no less.
I suggest that if the 'finding' is 'pilot error' it may well be quite 'excusable'.
No-one's disagreeing with that, but the knowledge of the different laws (or lack thereof) is not the issue in my opinion. Bad airspeed indications over water at night must be pretty close to a pilot's worst nightmare no matter who built the machine they're flying. The lessons learned from Birgenair and Aeroperu have hopefully given pilots more of a fighting chance than they had in the mid-90s, but it is just that - a chance. It is an inherently difficult problem to solve.
Originally Posted by
Smilin_Ed
And number 2 is that when airspeed information, something that the flight control system relies on heavily, becomes unreliable, that autotrim of the THS should drop out with the autopilot.
Why do you say that? You're taking a design decision out of context and trying to change that decision based on one accident. There are plenty of other scenarios where autotrim without A/P is a good idea (for example, pilot incapacitatation in Alt Law - the remaining pilot has pitch and trim in his sidestick hand and throttles in the other, rather than having to switch around all three).
@infrequentflyer - agree 100%
Looks to me as if an Airbus pilot needs more skills and training than average.
All aircraft have quirks, the A330 is no exception. I don't think it requires more training than, say, a 767 or whatever, it just needs the *right* training, and it appears that some airlines are definitely shirking that responsibility.
Pilots didn't have to worry too much about the counterweights, levers and so forth that provided artificial feel in the past, why should software laws be any different as long as the training to deal with those changes in laws is correct?
@theficklefinger - Seriously? FBW Airbus models have been struck by lightning more times than you care to shake a stick at, and very few of those even required a computer reset (I think there's a post on this earlier in the thread). The only time controls have been wired up in reverse in an A320 it was due to a maintenance error, and the pilot in the other seat calmly took over control and landed the aircraft safely. Airbus then changed the design of the connectors so it was not possible to wire them up incorrectly in that manner again.