Originally Posted by
BOAC
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....................
Hi BOAC,
I don't want to interfer to much in your discussion with HN39, abut still I'm puzzled by your comment about the different laws.
I mean, aren't crew supposed to be able to adapt to slightly different 'rules of flying'? Isn't that the very purpose of "keeping" crews and not letting computers alone in the front end?
- Crews are able to understand (and manage) an engine failure, resulting in slightly different 'rules of flying': less thrust available and dissimetry.
- Crews are able to understand (and manage) a fuel leak or a depressurization, resulting in slightly different 'rules of flying': range is shortened, altitude is limited (if depressurization).
Why would crews not be able to understand (and manage) the slightly different 'rules of flying' that some sensor failure may cause, such as the loss of protections caused by law reversion?
I fail to see the fundamental difference you seem to see between those different failures.