Good frigin' grief.
Laws, modes, sensors, probes. Who gives a rodent ass?
I agree with Ber.
As a PPL I have a headache from just reading all this.
It seems such an unnecessarily complicated set of procedures to follow in the very infrequent event that you will need to. It seems too complicated for a human brain to follow in a moment of heightened anxiety. Unnecessarily so. A computer could do it, but not a human. Too much room for error when it's not a task that is practiced repeatedly.
Bring back the cables and vacuum gauges, I say!
We can't bring back the cables or physical force feedback from the tubes and cables for most planes. Ultralights and many general aviation planes could easily get by and be safe and fun to fly. I relished my time in those planes, and we separated the wannabes from the folks with "touch" in short order most of the time.
I am an old fart but not one of those dinosaurs that are proud that they do not know anything about computers or such. When their system crashes on a desert island and don't know how many computers and servers and bandwidth stuff was involved so little Sally could use Facetime, they whine. So I flew the first really computerized attack jet, and then the next in line which was FBW. Big deal. I soon realized the limits of the near-artificial intelligence of the computers. I had to learn the inner workings because a) I depended on some of them to continue living, and b) I was a curious type. I also was in charge of the academics training for the first year and a half of F-16 training.
Our genesis pilots of the Atari generation in the F-16 in early 1980 was very revealing to we old farts. Our nuggets were admonished to remember what they had seen in "real" planes. You know, the ones that gave mechanical feedback( T-37) and the ones that had hydraulic control systems and feedback was just some dampers and springs ( T-38). A far cry from what I learned in the T-37 and T-33, with mechanical elevat.or and augmented roll
Ya know what? They done just fine. They exploited our avionics systems and appreciated the "protections" the FBW system provided, but they remembered basic aero and physics. They knew how to read a map and tune and interpret the VOR/TACAN/ILS and follow a paper letdown chart without a FMS. They were not "children of the magenta line". They used the cosmic avionics and such as the yutes do now with iPhones and such. They remembered how to fly and we never let them forget that.
The FBW and the cosmic avionics were there to help and not to rule.
If all we are now worried about is the definition of a probe or a sensor or whatever, then we are in dire straits. No difference whether the "sensor" went FUBAR or if the "probe" went to La La land.
The FBW systems must have a very clear reversion sequence and not have ten possible corrective actions, and then ten more once you have follwed rule 10,a,iii. GASP!!!
That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!