PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF471 - Nov 16th 2011 - Final Report
View Single Post
Old 10th Feb 2014, 22:08
  #81 (permalink)  
flyhardmo
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: everywhere
Posts: 502
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Guys, we're still arguing in circles around the crux of the matter. Why did Land 2 necessitate a G/A? The G/A procedure was messed up, but why was it performed in the first place? Perhaps someone inside AF can enlighten us as to their SOP's.
Section 2.3 of the report states the operator instruction for a CAT 3 final App.
A GA is mandatory for any warning or caution light.
An automatic landing was still possible as Land 2 indicates the autoland system does not have redundancy for a triple channel autoland.

The lack of GA – mis selection, contributed to the incident, and appears to be associated with a weak design / switch location. Just because everyone else manages to select GA does not mean that the design is adequate for all situations, especially those with surprise
Boeing spends a lot of money on ergonomics and design to make sure it feels and works right based on scientific research and not personal opinion.
flyhardmo is offline