Hi,
Clandestino:
Originally Posted by RR NDB
I donīt like the approach to diagnose UAS by System output.
I put:
I donīt like the approach to diagnose UAS by System output. As showed in an Airbus SAS paper mentioned in an earlier post. This can be improved and in AF447 case seems very important.
In an earlier post i observed:
IMHO this is dangerous. Digital signal processing of air speed analog data can inform UAS onset to the crew before System start to process garbage.
Neither do I. BEA is also unhappy but it issued no recommendation on fixing it. What you fail to understand is...
The recommendations will generate a better design. I hope an UAS DSP subsystem will be eventually used.
Please could you explain: "What you fail to understand is...".
What you mean?
Question of adequate training is another can of worms. How come other AF crews dealt without much fuss with UAS if AF training is inadequate? It is not just about training, it is also about selection. Starting from the first flight in glider, ending when the logbook is closed for good.
Even morons could deal with UAS if are trained to use a DSP UAS detector.
(Air speed is important. Pitotīs seems obsolete. Thales version used in F-GZCP was obsolete)
Air speed anomalies are frequent and potentially affect the stability of the System. The current situation is not good.
The 3 redundant (Pitotīs and subsystems, CPT, FO and Stand By) System elements failed SIMULTANEOUSLY. No redundancy, therefore. Better to use a single element.
On the REC MAX protection please donīt consider it so seriously. Actually good pilots can unload the wing above REC MAX and save the day.