Originally Posted by
BOAC
AZR - I agree with NTA on that and have said it before many times.
As I don't understand what NTA point is (perhaps because I'm under the impression he didn't get the facts right), I'll pass to comment on that.
Originally Posted by
BOAC
I don't know the answer to your question
OK, thanks.
Originally Posted by
BOAC
but in the absence of any logical explanation for AB events such as 447 involving 'failure' of the protection systems, I am asking. A kind of Occam's razor, I suppose?
I'm not aware of a long list of "AB events such as 447 involving 'failure' of the protection systems"...
About the logical explanation, there is one in the final report (as to why 447 crew, and more precisely PF, acted as he did) that looks convincing to me. This could led to technical modifications re: FD availability, but I fail to see how a modification to the protection system would be sensible. On that topic, and the existence of the alternate law (that some people judged misleading and/or dangerous), I just read "QF32" by Cpt de Crespigny and found his view on the matter reassuring.
Finally, if I understand correctly, the "go full back stick and trust protections" is teached *only* for low altitude, terrain avoidance events (e.g. CFIT trajectory, windshears...), *not* as a one-fit-all recipe to get out of trouble.
So
AFAIK, HazelNuts39 has it right.
