Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Why not Dozy ?
Again, what are your references ?
Note the language - "should". References aren't necessary, it's part of the fundamental systems design. In Normal Law protections are supposed to resolve the situation before the warnings trigger. I'm aware that there are exceptions in edge cases (as rudderrudderrat helpfully reminded me).
Originally Posted by
rudderrudderrat
However, you believed one should never hear an overspeed warning when in Normal Law - because it says so in the manual - but it is possible.
Fair enough.
If we start debating the merits or otherwise of the stall warning logic *again* then we'll just be going round in circles. This accident identified an edge case which will probably require a re-think of the logic - I'm not questioning that.
All I was doing was answering a question that was asked, namely, would the Captain have had any clue that they were in Alternate Law. I suggested that the stall warning should have been a clue, or at least reason enough to ask what law they were in. I'm not criticising the captain for not following that logic path precisely because the situation was so confusing for him - I'm just suggesting one possible way to work out the current flight control law based on immediate evidence.