Thanks for you answer
A33Zab. The more we talk about the overall system, the more we measure its extreme complexity.
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
Nothing. There is no AOA protection outside of normal law.
Incorrect
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
The aircraft has been designed to cope with the loss of G & Y Hydraulic systems (hence NO Stab trim). Despite no stabiliser movement, the elevators are powerful enough to control the aircraft from cruising speed to approach and landing.
It depends how was the trim at the time of the malfunction. As reminded earlier by
DJ77, if the trim was locked above 8 UP, max speed would be 180kt.
For the 330, it would be B & Y.
Originally Posted by infrequentflyer789
BEA says "to the left and nose-up stops". For 30s. Is that not "hard back" ?
As discussed earlier, IMO, translation is not accurate, and should possibly be as follow :
The PF made an input on the sidestick to the left stop and nose-up, which lasted about 30 seconds.
Originally Posted by A33Zab
That would be hard to prove as is in general.
This one would not have happened for sure, can't say about 5A-ONG (Tripoli). Are there any others? (besides Test flight)
I am still very interested in what
Svarin,
yourself, and
PJ2, wrote on that
WRG ACARS message ...
Among the 30 known events of UAS at cruising altitude, AF447 has been the only one to lose control, as I understand it, it has also been the only one to deal with a simultaneous mysterious wiring issue ...
And I don't put too much expectation in the BEA to dig any further in that direction.
But my question to
PA 18 151 was more, if the protected aircrafts save many lives, the unprotected ones should logically kill more ... is it the case ?
To me, after 20 years of operation of these FBW Airbus, what the protections did manage to do for sure, is to get bigger incident/accident reports.
But then I don't want to speak too loud as a protection could well save my life one day ... not sure I'll be humble enough to tell that story here tough.