PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF447 Thread No. 3
View Single Post
Old 8th Jun 2011, 14:55
  #1614 (permalink)  
MurphyWasRight
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 73
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
NoD:
Your post expresses indignation at a warning that was not present, when maybe it should have been. The designers also have to consider not presenting warnings when they are not valid - indeed "Stall" is one of the highest level wanrings in the Airbus, and the consequence of an incorrectly presented one is potentially very hazardous.
On the other hand there is a huge difference between inhibiting initiating a stall warning at <60Kts and arbitrarily -stopping- an existing stall warning when the (sensed) speed goes from 60 to 59 Kts and then even worse
-resuming- the alarm just as corrective action is taken (nose down) and the sensed speed rises above 59Kts.

Do totally agree with you that consequences of screwing up the stall alarm can be very bad.
MurphyWasRight is offline