Lonewolf_50 writes :
the system not working as advertised
Yes, my set of hypotheses sees it having worked
as programmed, not
as expected, even by its designers, making the expression
by design completely meaningless.
Lonewolf_50 again :
electrical ghost faults
Going further into detail, I am of a mind that the WRG message is not a physical wiring fault, but a communication problem, software-related, between PRIM2 and ADR1. This would therefore not be a ghost fault. It would be reproductible.
One would need to mount the whole identical system (all computers, soft versions, P/N, etc...) on a simulator and introduce the specific 10 seconds monitoring process, and see what happens. This 10 seconds process being likely the only case for which communication breakdown would occur between these two computers.
GarageYears remarked :
I seriously doubt the control law in effect was Normal during the "zoom-climb" event
You are certainly welcome to show this healthy skepticism regarding the whole PRIMs sour business I have posited.
May I summon
A33Zab great technical information for help ?
There’s only 1 PRIM in control and that will be the one which can deliver the highest possible law and in the sequence PRIM 1, 2 & 3
(emphasis mine)
This means Normal law is
preferred over any
inferior laws. This is the very core of this flight controls design.
If PRIM 2, in your view, is in control and able to deliver NORMAL LAW this means that PRIM 1 was not able to compute NORMAL LAW protections
Quite right, except PRIM1 is not faulted before 02:13. Which PRIM becomes master if PRIM1 is ALT2 and PRIM2 is Nz ?
In my view, at that time PRIM 1 was in control, PRIM 2 and 3 couldn’t compute NORMAL LAW either.
Due to the PITOT problem they had all the same ADR information.
With all due respect to your extreme technical knowledge, may I introduce this disagreeing parameter ?
WRG:ADIRU1 BUS ADR1-2 TO FCPC2
This means PRIM2
does not have the same ADR set available to it than the other two PRIMs have.