Originally Posted by
silverstrata
Why would a function that prevents a tail-strike on landing be considered to be a 'design fault'? Its perfectly obvious that if there is a flyable pitch attitude on landing that will result in a tail strike (alpha-max greater than alpha-strike), then the aircraft should automatically limit its pitch.
Well, I'd consider the operation of a "landing mode" that is capable of triggering when the pilot is not intending to land a pretty major design fault, so it's just as well that landing mode was never triggered.
a. Does the A320 have a tail-strike pitch limiter?
I can't say 100%, but I'm pretty sure that it doesn't - certainly her newer sibling the A340-600 does not, given that she suffered quite a few tail scrapes while line pilots got used to her. But it doesn't matter in the end because even if it did have one,
landing mode was never triggered.
b. If so, at what rad-alt does it operate?
It doesn't, because it doesn't exist (although some features are inhibited below 30ft), and even if it did,
landing mode was never triggered.
c. And if so, please explain why it would NOT have operated during the Habsheim crash?
I'm hoping the previous answers will make this question redundant.
P.S. Landing mode was never triggered
The possibility of a pilot wanting to land on a forest was probably not anticipated by Airbus, and nor should it be, in my opinion.
He didn't want to land on a forest, he wanted to perform the high-alpha flypast that he'd done many times before - unfortunately due to a combination of administrative errors on the part of Air France and, in all probability, a little overconfidence in his own abilities (a well-respected poster on here said that his captain once told him that the Habsheim incident captain was "the most arrogant man [he'd] ever met"), he misjudged his altitude, speed, thrust setting and position.
N.B. The levity of this post is supposed to be humour, so please don't take it the wrong way - happy Friday everyone!