Originally Posted by RR NDB
My role here is limited. I consider first to assertively say what i am convinced, absolutely sure and this must be said. Because was important in the crash.
Important is what happened, not what someone is convinced happened. That there exists a real world that we are dealing with in aviation is beyond doubt so flying is definitively no place for
solipsists.
Originally Posted by RR NDB
Simple DSP techniques used extensively in the industry.
In washing machines and refrigerators also. It's not the digital signal processing technology, it is the algorithm what matters! No one has so far come with reliable algorithm to automatically detect and deal with UAS nor you have made any practical suggestion. Just wishes.
Originally Posted by RR NDB
We are discussing here a total failure of an Airbus SAS product.
Cheerfully ignoring that any aeroplane equipped with fault warning system in service today, when involved in UAS, will bombard the crews with undue warning messages.
Originally Posted by RR NDB
Degrade a System and wait for the crew diagnose is a COMPLETE ABSURD.
So you have noticed way things work and developed own theories about it after the system was certified and successfully flown for 20 years? What prompted you to notice?
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
No - I meant Alternate Law, but the sentence that followed it referred to Direct.
OK - it still holds it's not difficult for someone aware what he is supposed to do.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
I was working on the assumption that it would be harer without tactile feedback, but if you think otherwise...
I am also not immune to buying BS occasionally. Good thing I had a chance to try it myself so rectified my opinion through personal experience.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
The point I was making is that all modern airliners rely on computers whether being flown manually or on auto these days. If the electronics quit, it's a lot more difficult to fly them.
Exactly - they are not relying on computers to keep them airborne, they need it to deal with precisions of RVSM, RNAV and CAT3 but they can be safely flown without them. So what if every computer go tits-up, aeroplane is still flying and it's pilots job too keep it so until safe landing.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Really? And you know this how? Are you, were you, an Airbus test pilot? Just how is a line pilot to accomplish this state of control?
Direct law is extensively practiced on initial type rating training and later it often is a part of sim refreshers and checks.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
Clandestino is a former FBW Airbus line pilot, now flying ATR turboprops.
1. Actually it was ATR - A320 - Q400 but even if I were 12 year old Justin Bieber fan, it would have absolutely no impact on the assertions I've made here. Ad hominem is logical fallacy no matter if we use it to discredit or support the claim.
2. As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. So if someone makes a claim he is a pilot of this or that and then goes on making absolutely false claims about the equipment he is supposes to fly on, it absolutely doesn't imply that the pilots of said equipment are not acquainted with their mount and that we should blame the manufacturers for providing inadequate manuals.
Originally Posted by TTex600
I'm still waiting for the instructions on how to put an Airbus in direct law. I'd like to try and fly it that way if I ever get assigned to a mx flight.
1. direct law is not to be activated deliberately. Failures that will cause degradation to it are comprehensively listed in FCOM
2. mx flight programme covers way to achieve direct law, if checking the handling in it is required.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
You're in Direct Law whenever you land.
Actually, it is only in rollout.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
If you follow the crazy procedure of going into a 5 degree pitch up and climb power then you will soon get an overspeed. Everybody knows that.
Let me try it this way: everybody knows that, except the test pilots developing the procedure, authorities approving it, instructors teaching it and pilots knowing their procedures. I think you should really talk to them about their fallacy. Bring some arguments along.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Add Newton to the equation (the apple) and your explanation of the deceleration will be complete (it's not only for artillery matter)
Great. Now we're not just creating our own personal aerodynamics but even our personal physics. What do you believe was the reason aeroplane did not accelerate when it started falling? While gravity did help curtailing the zoom climb, original argument was directed at the notion there's not much drag when aeroplane is stalled.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
Maybe the PF forgot he went to alt rules and reacted as he did pitching up into an impossible 14 degree deck angle because he thought Airbus said you can't stall it so just pulled back and held it for over 3 minutes.
So that's it. He was aware what happened andof the procedure to be applied but unaware that he was flying above acceleration altitude despite taking off four hours earlier. Plausible? I don't think so.