Originally Posted by Owain Glyndwr
@AirRabbit
If you go back to the OP you will find it querying
Quote:
FAA changes to "Va"
Quote:
after the Airbus deal
I take this to mean the changes FAA made to their regulations as a result of NTSB pointing out the confusion that existed between Va used as a design speed and Va used as a manoeuvre speed.
If you check out the posts I cited earlier you will find that the FAA made changes to the definition of the latter, not to Va used as a design speed. Consequently I think that referring RH and CS to the latest definition of manoeuvre design speed won't help them - hence my reference to an earlier PPRuNe discussion.
Thanks … and I have gone back to the thread and the posts you referenced – and interestingly in my dim memory, I vaguely recall the discussions that took place in my circle of colleagues when all that occurred … and even with those discussions I don’t think that any of us had that proverbial “light bulb” experience – because even with deciphering each individual word – there were still some areas that, at least to most of us, seemed contradictory or at least argumentative.
However, after all that, even with whatever level of understanding any of us may have had (even full understanding) with respect to what the revised regulation would have required or allowed, there is still the issue of not only control reversals, but multiple reversals, most of which were to the control limits, that would throw out all of the attempts to understand any logic or generate any sympathy for any such lack of intelligent understanding of those re-written rules. I still come back to not understanding why that pilot chose such wholly different control applications for what was essentially the same encounter twice.