Inhibition of stall warning. Well Ok, see where the designers where going...
I used to fly Zlin 142 at 180° alpha (very briefly) with stall warning ringer silent, yet a couple of seconds later it went off quite happily as I botched the exit from Immelman.
Now, can we accept that alpha probes need to have some airflow to work reliably or do we keep on harping that they have to work perfectly from zero kt to Mmo, which is quite a wishful thinking?
Affirm mode by changing some colours on the FD ? In a crisis I am supposed to notice and swing my mind around to that ?
Sigh. What was the initial crisis?
Let the THS go way beyond normal limits and not scream about it ?
Sigh again. What is the normal THS limit? Did THS follow the pilot's stick order, yea or nay?
Have a SOP which says blank FD when the software could automatically do it ?
Fictional software. As developed and certified - can't.
Need to crowbar the logic in some situations.
When one's notions are both at odds with official documents and totally disproved by reality and yet still there is urge to promulgate them on internet fora, crowbaring the logic is quite appropriate.
How about a 'Ghastly Silence' mode
Worked well around here until a couple of days ago.
The pilots need effectively to understand 2/3 'philosophies' - slightly different 'rules of flying' in each law, and to be able to 'switch' seamlessly from one to the other, probably when the is hitting the fan. An easy task for a 'HAL' with loads'a lines of code, but for we mere mortals....................
Obviously, my umpteen attempts at explaining the protections were just too technical. Let me try it this way: why do you think Airbus pilot needs to understand what you have labeled "2/3 philosophies"? Why would the Airbus pilot need to know anything about protections at all (besides them being covered in FCOM and there being legal requirement to know one's manuals)?
why was the stick subsequently held back, do you think?
Panic.
An Airbus is not worse than any other design, but it is not better just because of its design either.
So sayst thou.
I don't want to enter the statistics debate again, but another FBW design has a better safety record.
Not necessarily just because it's a FBW of different flavour. Part of it is certainly attributable to her price tag combined with date of service entry - she just didn't trickle down yet to lower tiers operators.
I have flown the AB, the T7 and the MD11. All of them FBW
Since when LSAS counts as FBW?
It is this myth of some invulnerability of Airbus that cultivates pilots who fly escape manoeuvres with full stick back in any situation.
Escape from what? Under what circumstances?
A start would be to stop with such dumb assertions that Airbus does this and that better than others.
There is absolutely no realistic doubt that hard alpha protected aeroplane (such as Embraer) performs better in windshear/ground escapes than those with overridable prots. Why would anyone call assertion stemming from flight test results dumb?
What we need is a simple independent back-up to all the electronics like i.e. a pneumatically (wind) driven gyroscopic horizon and a unprocessed access to the flight controls.
Where would you power your pneumatic AH from with dual bleed failure? Why ISIS doesn't satisfy you? Did you ever hear about direct law, which is exactly what you propose but is in operation since 1988? Why do you feel the urge right now to denigrate alternate law?
I guess he thought that since he was definitely airborne that it was necessary to pull fully back.
Well, since you have so nicely copypasted the procedure 'tis a pity you didn't include the title of it.
It's low level windshear encounter.
What does it have to do with cruise, beats me. Lest you want to suggest that it is indeed difficult to tell the difference between low level maneuvering and cruise flight.
We dinosaurs were taught to "respect the stick shaker" during these manoeuvres. Airbus doesn't fit one
Even the report confirmed it is pretty superfluous as natural buffet is quite pronounced.
just another audio warning on top of constant "C chord" altitude deviation warning.
And it says : "STALL STALL STALL STALL STALL STALL". Pretty unambiguous, eh?
Just need two AoA probes to freeze at a similar angle
Pray tell, how did it occur?
High angle protection no more but normal law still.
Parbleu! Wasn't there any indication in cockpit something wasn't quite right?