Originally Posted by
infrequentflyer789;Post=320
You're right, but it's also a general statement of the need to be cautious about what is or is not "simple" in software without detailed knowledge. A fair few years in software development has taught me that it's very easy for someone to believe they know enough about the internals of a system to assess the impact of a change request, when in fact they don't.
Career experience may be different from person to person, particularly when it’s a few years worth. A certain amount of time is required for one to become a principal, and even more to be higher on the career ladder. Very Large, very complex software systems have been around for quite some time, and there are plenty of people with a few decades of experience of being major contributors in the middle of things, of being those that made things happen.
But this is besides the point. It does not matter how easy is to fix it. If it need be fixed, then it need be fixed. A signal from a manufacturer that is not confident it can fix a problem of minor magnitude, shows trouble.
And therein lies the dillema - warning vs actual conditions. Maybe I didn't expalin well.
You did explain well - it is fully appreciated - but there is also a misunderstanding, as I referred to the "state" or "condition" of "Stall of the airplane", as a generic term, not specific to the Airbus nomenclature that you’ve described.
Finally, the way I understand the THS, and it’s made clear by the few pages from when I should have posted this reply - sorry for the delay - I am not the only one. It seems it is a lot bigger problem to leave its behavior as it is now, than to fix it.