PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Airbus takes pilots back to basics with the A350
Old 4th Oct 2012, 13:06
  #109 (permalink)  
Clandestino
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,418
Originally Posted by Alpageur 320
It appears from your tone that you imply i didn't know that, or I was thinking about something else
Sorry for misunderstanding you but I am still no wiser regarding what you were actually referring to with "the best line of defense".

Originally Posted by Alpageur 320
What do you think in that case of an aircraft that (in so called 'alternate law') only gives an oral warning of a stall, instead of also a tactile one...
1. No aeroplane has ever been made that gives its stall warning orally nor there is a slimmest chance there will ever be. As for aural warning, it doesn't get better than synthetic voice shouting: "STALL STALL STALL".

2. alternate law is not 'so called', it is official term for something well described in FCOM. Those unable to understand it have no business being in Airbus cockpit. It is difficult to understand for Joe Ignorant.

Originally Posted by Alpageur 320
I'm pretty sure that Davies would have said there must be a better way around it!
3. if you just bothered to read and understand Davis, he explicitly mentions shaker and pushers are only fitted to aeroplane with unacceptable stall characteristics i.e. no pres-stall buffet or tendency to deep stall. It is painfully obvious that AF447 did not roll, did not flick, did not spin and it took all the effort of the CM2 to hold it stalled, as soon as he released the stick, nose plunged down towards recovery. Report also mentions test flight that confirmed 330 has severe pre-stall buffet. 1G shake at cockpit is good and ample warning in anyone 's book.

Originally Posted by Alpageur 320
My question is neither rhetoric nor trivial
I can see that. It is loaded. With ignorance.

Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
The gist of what was said was that the publication as it stands is in fact largely the same as it has been since 1989
Thanks! Since it is form 1989, I am a bit less puzzled by what the heck were they thinking when they referred to "relaxed static stability aeroplanes". As the A320 was whole 1 year in service at the time, it was probably: "If it has sidestick like F-16, well then it must be as stable as F-16"
Clandestino is offline