Quote:
Originally Posted by A3-TWENTY
I completely disagree when you said the pitots were not one of the factors contributing to the accident.
Please go back and re-read my response. I NEVER said that the pitots were not one of the factors contributing to the accident. Here are my words, "The pitot issue may or may not have been a design fault; but I think everyone agrees the pitots were not up to the task, whether by faulty design or by failure to perform as designed. " I said that I think everyone agrees that the pitots were not up to the task. I'm just not certain that they failed due to a design failure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A3Twenty
There is no doubt pilots failed to comply with procedures , but in my opinion, the airplane showed three design failures, some known long ago.
1.The side sticks are not connected.
2.Pitots getting iced.
3. The stall warnings stops before you are reaaly out of stall.
My 2 cents.
Yes, they failed to comply with procedure and the key lies in why.
Would you care to speculate as to why the crew failed to recognize the need to follow the UAS procedure?
I think the only real design failure is in allowing stall warning to stop while the aircraft was/is still stalled.
I was answering this post. And here you say you think the "ONLY REAL design failure is in allowing stall warning to stop while the aircraft was/is still stalled "
Sorry but it is hard to guess which post you were especting me to answer.
Again.
Wouldn`t have they failed a couple of times before this accident (fortunately without any incident) and Airbus didn`t recomend operators to change them.
Do you think Airbus would recomend its change if they worked properly?