Originally Posted by J.O., quoting Bill Voss, FSF President
"First, I was amazed at how benign the initial failure really was. Some electronic centralized aircraft monitor (ECAM) messages, an autopilot disconnect and some bad speed indications. All of this happened in light turbulence, and lasted for less than a minute. The only response needed was to manually fly the same attitude the autopilot had been flying for hours. It should have ended with a logbook entry."
Thanks for posting Bill Voss's remarks.
I have been making this point for a very long time now. But I see in the Tech thread there are still those who believe, like Alain Bouillard of the BEA that pitching the aircraft to 5° at cruise altitude is the correct response. It isn't.
The UAS drill is badly written and can mis-direct the crew into an incorrect response if the Memory Items, intended for when the safety of the aircraft is immediately impacted such as the takeoff phase, are executed at cruise altitudes. The training they had would have been at low altitude, right after takeoff, where the UAS Drill's Memory Items are appropriate until the aircraft is above the MSA or circuit altitude. The "If above FL100....5° of pitch" qualification is misleading and wrong.
In cruise flight the initia UAS Memory Items should not be followed step-by-step - the aircraft is to be leveled-off for troubleshooting yet there is no evidence that any new thinking on the UAS Memory drill has been introduced.
Bill Voss is right - this should have been a log-entry. He is also right about how benign the initial failure was. It is almost a non-event...take over and hand fly, "do nothing", which means maintain level flight, while the system sorts itself out. The even certainly didn't threaten the safety of the aircraft.