PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF 447 Thread No. 11
View Single Post
Old 23rd Nov 2013, 21:18
  #913 (permalink)  
DozyWannabe
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
If someone could please explain how an A330 could ever have a CAS<60kts (at 1 g) whilst airborne - then I'll give up on this point.
If you are feeding "bad data" (intermittent / silent stall warning) onto the flight deck - then you'll probably get bad diagnosis out.
I'm pretty confident that the NCD value was to keep the FCS computations predictable and consistent - the FWC probably didn't come into it. I don't think the impact on Stall Warning was considered - and I'd be surprised if it was considered on other types either.

Audio clues tend to get filtered out by the brain during high work load. It is much better to use tactile (vibration / stick shaker).
You'd think so, but the record doesn't bear this out - shakers and pushers have been ignored or dumped pretty regularly. Even if we confine the data set to accidents after the launch of the A320, there have been more ignored shaker warnings than there have been ignored aural "cricket" warnings.

Originally Posted by CONF iture
The STALL WARNING logic is one of the contributory factors in this accident.
No argument there, but let's not beat about the bush - it's a comparatively small factor when looking at the incident as a whole. Also, as I said before - we don't know how stall warnings on other types would respond when so far outside the accepted flight envelope.

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 23rd Nov 2013 at 21:38.
DozyWannabe is offline