A320 OEB Blocked AOA probes
probes, sensors, reversion modes, et al
Good frigin' grief.
Laws, modes, sensors, probes. Who gives a rodent ass?
I agree with Ber.
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!
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!
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!
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!
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Vega Constellation
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This AD does not mention icing per se. A blocked AOA probe does not necessarily mean it was iced up in icing conditions. One can refer to the Perpignan crash, as previously posted. The AOA probes 1 & 2 were blocked in clear weather, due to improper maintenance while washing the aircraft: a high pressure water jet was used to clean the fuselage, and water passed throught the first seal to lodge within the AOA probe's casings. Only after spending some time at altitude did the probes block up because the water inside the casings of AOA 1 & 2 had frozen up. Again, not ice accretion.
Due to the voting system logic, if two probes read "X" value and a third one reads "Y" value, the Y will be considered erroneous, regardless of the reality. There is no other way for the system to assess wrong ADR inputs/outputs.
This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs has a dual function: with only one ADR, the autoflight reverts to alternate, as previously mentioned, so speed protections are lost and the pilot will recover flight control authority, with the possibility of manually exceeding any high or low speed regime, as well as bank angles. That is just the way airplanes flew before FBW for the last 100 years almost. It's up to the pilot to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope.
The second function, is to force the system to use only one ADR source, thus removing any voting logic out of the equation. This should be a momentary solution, as the pilot , unknowingly, may have kept ON the ADR with a blocked AOA. Therefore, after full flight control authority has been recovered, investigating which of the ADRs has blocked AOA would be greatly beneficial, in order to get the SW working should other sh*te happen on the same flight.
This is one of the reasons I have no time for pilots saying "We don't need to know the system in that much detail" or "I don't need to know that". We are not mere button pushers. Anyone not interested in aircraft systems should not be flying airplanes for a living. Imagine a soldier going to war, and doesn't care how his automatic rifle works, and says "nah, it's OK, you just need to pull the trigger, should work fine." See how far this soldier would go...
Due to the voting system logic, if two probes read "X" value and a third one reads "Y" value, the Y will be considered erroneous, regardless of the reality. There is no other way for the system to assess wrong ADR inputs/outputs.
This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs has a dual function: with only one ADR, the autoflight reverts to alternate, as previously mentioned, so speed protections are lost and the pilot will recover flight control authority, with the possibility of manually exceeding any high or low speed regime, as well as bank angles. That is just the way airplanes flew before FBW for the last 100 years almost. It's up to the pilot to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope.
The second function, is to force the system to use only one ADR source, thus removing any voting logic out of the equation. This should be a momentary solution, as the pilot , unknowingly, may have kept ON the ADR with a blocked AOA. Therefore, after full flight control authority has been recovered, investigating which of the ADRs has blocked AOA would be greatly beneficial, in order to get the SW working should other sh*te happen on the same flight.
This is one of the reasons I have no time for pilots saying "We don't need to know the system in that much detail" or "I don't need to know that". We are not mere button pushers. Anyone not interested in aircraft systems should not be flying airplanes for a living. Imagine a soldier going to war, and doesn't care how his automatic rifle works, and says "nah, it's OK, you just need to pull the trigger, should work fine." See how far this soldier would go...
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FLEXPWR, Willie Nelson
I will examine the situation again. When AoA sensors are stuck(for whatever reason) at low speed(higher AoA) position and the speed increases, when the alpha prot threshold is lowered the protection gest triggered. Will it go in dive and exceed limits? Not possible because alpha prot is a latching condition and will maintain that angle of attack which also is stuck at lower speed(higher AoA)value. The problem is not dive but involuntary/unwanted descent at alpha prot which cannot be reversed and can be critical close to ground. So by switching to alternate law you override the protection. On the PFD the actual speed will be correct but the display of Valph prot and V alpha strip will be erroneous since it is coming from AoA sensors in the wrong position. It is not possible to investigate which AoA sensor is faulty and you will have to fly in alternate law.The cockpit indication for unreliable air speed can confusing and there are many scenarios but not the one discussed above. However once diagnosed you will reject all of them fly by attitude ad thrust. This AD and OEB is intricate and meant for Airbus FBW operators so those who are not and holding PPL etc. should not read it and confuse themselves and definitely should refrain from forming any opinion about the aircraft.
I will examine the situation again. When AoA sensors are stuck(for whatever reason) at low speed(higher AoA) position and the speed increases, when the alpha prot threshold is lowered the protection gest triggered. Will it go in dive and exceed limits? Not possible because alpha prot is a latching condition and will maintain that angle of attack which also is stuck at lower speed(higher AoA)value. The problem is not dive but involuntary/unwanted descent at alpha prot which cannot be reversed and can be critical close to ground. So by switching to alternate law you override the protection. On the PFD the actual speed will be correct but the display of Valph prot and V alpha strip will be erroneous since it is coming from AoA sensors in the wrong position. It is not possible to investigate which AoA sensor is faulty and you will have to fly in alternate law.The cockpit indication for unreliable air speed can confusing and there are many scenarios but not the one discussed above. However once diagnosed you will reject all of them fly by attitude ad thrust. This AD and OEB is intricate and meant for Airbus FBW operators so those who are not and holding PPL etc. should not read it and confuse themselves and definitely should refrain from forming any opinion about the aircraft.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Wengen
Age: 53
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutually Exclusive And Not Interchangeable Terms!
The pitot probe just captures air...the sensor is at the other end of the tube somewhere in the air data system.
The AOA sensor actually has the resolver built right in and is actually outputting a value to the computers.
The AOA sensor actually has the resolver built right in and is actually outputting a value to the computers.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: somewhere
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not really new AD...
This airworthiness directive related to AOA is not really hot new in terms of issues. A33O and A340 had the same in 2012. (blocked AOA due to grease icing)
2 temporary revisions of airplanr flight manual were edited : TR 293 and TR 294 dec, 4th 2012, giving the same procedure as now published for A320.
Those temporary revisions can be found on EASA site.
2 temporary revisions of airplanr flight manual were edited : TR 293 and TR 294 dec, 4th 2012, giving the same procedure as now published for A320.
Those temporary revisions can be found on EASA site.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, again I must poke my nose into a topic of which I have little experience, but it seems to me that amongst those that do (guys here that appear to be professional Airbus pilots, instructors and/or engineers) there is an awful lot of confusion and discussion. Surely if you guys do this for your living then there should be no discussion. A should equal A to every one of you, but instead it seems that each of you have different opinions of what this system means in the event of this sensor failing in this.mode. It does not give guys like me much comfort to know that (some) pilots might misunderstand their aircraft in certain situations.
As I said, bring back the cables.
As I said, bring back the cables.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ber Nooly
A320 is a very easy aircraft to fly. Just like an ordinary calculator which any body can use but it is not easy to understand the logic and programme that goes into it. What is being discussed is not a normal operating procedure but pros and cons of a procedure in case of a very unusual situation. Unless you know something basic about A320 you should not get into this. At your stage you may have difficulty in understanding the cables of a 747 or MD11? To bring back cables you will have to get into a time machine because even the 737 is being made by Boeing under sheer pressure by customers like Southwest who wanted immediate equivalent of A320 neo.
A320 is a very easy aircraft to fly. Just like an ordinary calculator which any body can use but it is not easy to understand the logic and programme that goes into it. What is being discussed is not a normal operating procedure but pros and cons of a procedure in case of a very unusual situation. Unless you know something basic about A320 you should not get into this. At your stage you may have difficulty in understanding the cables of a 747 or MD11? To bring back cables you will have to get into a time machine because even the 737 is being made by Boeing under sheer pressure by customers like Southwest who wanted immediate equivalent of A320 neo.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This AD does not mention icing per se. A blocked AOA probe does not necessarily mean it was iced up in icing conditions. One can refer to the Perpignan crash, as previously posted. The AOA probes 1 & 2 were blocked in clear weather, due to improper maintenance while washing the aircraft: a high pressure water jet was used to clean the fuselage, and water passed throught the first seal to lodge within the AOA probe's casings. Only after spending some time at altitude did the probes block up because the water inside the casings of AOA 1 & 2 had frozen up. Again, not ice accretion.
Due to the voting system logic, if two probes read "X" value and a third one reads "Y" value, the Y will be considered erroneous, regardless of the reality. There is no other way for the system to assess wrong ADR inputs/outputs.
This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs has a dual function: with only one ADR, the autoflight reverts to alternate, as previously mentioned, so speed protections are lost and the pilot will recover flight control authority, with the possibility of manually exceeding any high or low speed regime, as well as bank angles. That is just the way airplanes flew before FBW for the last 100 years almost. It's up to the pilot to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope.
The second function, is to force the system to use only one ADR source, thus removing any voting logic out of the equation. This should be a momentary solution, as the pilot , unknowingly, may have kept ON the ADR with a blocked AOA. Therefore, after full flight control authority has been recovered, investigating which of the ADRs has blocked AOA would be greatly beneficial, in order to get the SW working should other sh*te happen on the same flight.
This is one of the reasons I have no time for pilots saying "We don't need to know the system in that much detail" or "I don't need to know that". We are not mere button pushers. Anyone not interested in aircraft systems should not be flying airplanes for a living. Imagine a soldier going to war, and doesn't care how his automatic rifle works, and says "nah, it's OK, you just need to pull the trigger, should work fine." See how far this soldier would go...
Due to the voting system logic, if two probes read "X" value and a third one reads "Y" value, the Y will be considered erroneous, regardless of the reality. There is no other way for the system to assess wrong ADR inputs/outputs.
This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs has a dual function: with only one ADR, the autoflight reverts to alternate, as previously mentioned, so speed protections are lost and the pilot will recover flight control authority, with the possibility of manually exceeding any high or low speed regime, as well as bank angles. That is just the way airplanes flew before FBW for the last 100 years almost. It's up to the pilot to keep the aircraft within the flight envelope.
The second function, is to force the system to use only one ADR source, thus removing any voting logic out of the equation. This should be a momentary solution, as the pilot , unknowingly, may have kept ON the ADR with a blocked AOA. Therefore, after full flight control authority has been recovered, investigating which of the ADRs has blocked AOA would be greatly beneficial, in order to get the SW working should other sh*te happen on the same flight.
This is one of the reasons I have no time for pilots saying "We don't need to know the system in that much detail" or "I don't need to know that". We are not mere button pushers. Anyone not interested in aircraft systems should not be flying airplanes for a living. Imagine a soldier going to war, and doesn't care how his automatic rifle works, and says "nah, it's OK, you just need to pull the trigger, should work fine." See how far this soldier would go...
Well said
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ber - if it puts your mind a little at rest, do NOT assume that all those claiming to be 'Airbus pilots' actually are. There are a lot of Walter Mittys around here.
vilas - "Unless you know something basic about A320 you should not get into this." The problem Ber and I see is that this seems to apply to a lot of the 'Airbus qualified' contributors too.
Way back I recall someone calling for a simple 'big red button' that can be pressed when HAL goes beserk, putting direct control back to the pilot with NO 'clever' software in the way so that the machine can be flown as an aeroplane while whatever has gone tits up is 'inverted'. Certainly having to start switching off bits of electronics while the machine tries to bunt you to your death does not come over as very reassuring to many. As flexpwr says
"This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs...."
vilas - "Unless you know something basic about A320 you should not get into this." The problem Ber and I see is that this seems to apply to a lot of the 'Airbus qualified' contributors too.
Way back I recall someone calling for a simple 'big red button' that can be pressed when HAL goes beserk, putting direct control back to the pilot with NO 'clever' software in the way so that the machine can be flown as an aeroplane while whatever has gone tits up is 'inverted'. Certainly having to start switching off bits of electronics while the machine tries to bunt you to your death does not come over as very reassuring to many. As flexpwr says
"This is where a pilot comes in handy. If you are lucky enough to get sufficient time to identify the failure before getting into a nose dive and and exceed VD, turning off two ADRs...."
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a former "Bus TRI, I don't see it a bad idea for these airplanes to have a "Direct Law" switch...the PRIM discrepancies on the (Qantas was it?) A330, and other incidents causing the airplane to deviate uncommanded from its desired flight path, would IMHO warrant this option to the pilots..AVIATE NAVIGATE COMMUNICATE and finally MANAGE...when the aircraft systems prevent one from the "aviate" bit, it sure makes things difficult
For those that want a "Direct Law/Alternate Law" reversion switch, it has one. Switching off 2 ADRs will have that very result. Its the quickest way of getting it into alternate law.
The other good one to have up your sleeve is the Emergency Electrical Config, to get in to that its 4 buttons.
The Airbus protections and computers can be switched off very quickly if required. Just be careful what you wish for.
The other good one to have up your sleeve is the Emergency Electrical Config, to get in to that its 4 buttons.
The Airbus protections and computers can be switched off very quickly if required. Just be careful what you wish for.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes..very easily done in inclement weather, never mind the startle factor, and possible confusion,(would everybody have thought of the ADR when their airplane pitched over into a dive and did not respond to sidestick inputs?) and bear in mind, that it's not only ADR issues that can cause problems, in any event, the DFDR and CVR will yield some interesting results
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: At home
Age: 64
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being a Yank, and not one prone to believe that Big Brother is watching at every moment, I still wonder if we are getting the "Truth, the Whole Truth and nothing but the Truth."
This AOA probe issue is not new. There was a proposed AD from 2012 that suddenly was withdrawn. Makes you wonder.
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...rbus-airplanes
The original AD was 2012-21-51. I think the EADS Lobby is very effective in Washington. They headed this AD off at the pass and it was never issued, until just last month. That's not surprising, we have the best Congress and Government money can buy.
This AOA probe issue is not new. There was a proposed AD from 2012 that suddenly was withdrawn. Makes you wonder.
https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...rbus-airplanes
The original AD was 2012-21-51. I think the EADS Lobby is very effective in Washington. They headed this AD off at the pass and it was never issued, until just last month. That's not surprising, we have the best Congress and Government money can buy.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jonty - by your own post "For those that want a "Direct Law/Alternate Law" reversion switch, it has TWO". (Or 4?) Which 2 to switch off? Which is the 'right' one?
In 'the old days', when the FMC or autopliot malfunctioned and you 'lost control', one click cured it. One click, near your thumb and not somewhere on a roof panel and you have an aeroplane back, and not a computer challenge.
What is the aversion amongst Airbus lovers to actually having control of the aeroplane? I do not understand it.
In 'the old days', when the FMC or autopliot malfunctioned and you 'lost control', one click cured it. One click, near your thumb and not somewhere on a roof panel and you have an aeroplane back, and not a computer challenge.
What is the aversion amongst Airbus lovers to actually having control of the aeroplane? I do not understand it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Zaphod:
This AOA probe issue is not new. There was a proposed AD from 2012 that suddenly was withdrawn. Makes you wonder.
Apparently the conic plates, although suspected, were not the source of this issue after all.
Airbii crew are informed by FOT and there is sufficient explaining material on the Flight OPS section of 'Airbus World'.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flagon and Jonty
The difference between pure FMS fitted conventional aircraft and FBW aircraft is mainly the protections soft in case of Boeing and hard in case of Airbus. These were basically designed so that pilot by his act cannot stall or over speed or overbank. But these parameters can get exceeded by environmental factors like angle of attack changing externally or over speed because change in wind and also by the AoA sensors or Pitot/static tubes getting fouled and triggering protections due to inappropriate data. These factors were not originally factored in the design of the aircraft so they have to come out with remedies. Immediate solution is through OEBs. I don't think airbus pilots will have objection to a switch to go into alternate law. It may come in future. Till then we follow manufacturers recommendations of switching two ADRs. EMER ELEC is not recommended so we simply don't do. EMER ELEC will knock out IR2 and IR3 after five minutes for rest of the flight and may have some other complications. Since these are not standard normal/abnormal procedures pilots discussing the event may appear divided or some may be partially incorrect but to take part in it or understand what is being said you need some knowledge of the flight control system.
The difference between pure FMS fitted conventional aircraft and FBW aircraft is mainly the protections soft in case of Boeing and hard in case of Airbus. These were basically designed so that pilot by his act cannot stall or over speed or overbank. But these parameters can get exceeded by environmental factors like angle of attack changing externally or over speed because change in wind and also by the AoA sensors or Pitot/static tubes getting fouled and triggering protections due to inappropriate data. These factors were not originally factored in the design of the aircraft so they have to come out with remedies. Immediate solution is through OEBs. I don't think airbus pilots will have objection to a switch to go into alternate law. It may come in future. Till then we follow manufacturers recommendations of switching two ADRs. EMER ELEC is not recommended so we simply don't do. EMER ELEC will knock out IR2 and IR3 after five minutes for rest of the flight and may have some other complications. Since these are not standard normal/abnormal procedures pilots discussing the event may appear divided or some may be partially incorrect but to take part in it or understand what is being said you need some knowledge of the flight control system.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere where I can watch you
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
vilas - "I don't think airbus pilots will have objection to a switch to go into alternate law." - my choice, if I were flying the machine, would be to DL and take the computers out of the circuit completely. We are, after all, talking about an emergency situation, so if crews were simply able to establish pitch and power for stable flight with NO interference/protections that would do me!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"I don't think airbus pilots will have objection to a switch to go into alternate law."
IFALPA objects to a direct AoA indicator, AF pilots objects the BUSS.....
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A33Zab
As long as they don't object to the OEB they can't object to a switch which does the same job. BUSS is not used above 25000ft. and below that generally the problem is going to stay. Any way I don't think they will install a switch but they might modify the AoA sensor or the protection. They already have modified alpha prot protection during approach and landing after an accident.
As long as they don't object to the OEB they can't object to a switch which does the same job. BUSS is not used above 25000ft. and below that generally the problem is going to stay. Any way I don't think they will install a switch but they might modify the AoA sensor or the protection. They already have modified alpha prot protection during approach and landing after an accident.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flagon
Now that you know why it happens it is not such an emergency. Alternate law has no danger. Direct law is a short term configuration to give you conventional aircraft response during landing. There is no feel and it cannot be practiced in aircraft. So not a good idea to suddenly get into.
Now that you know why it happens it is not such an emergency. Alternate law has no danger. Direct law is a short term configuration to give you conventional aircraft response during landing. There is no feel and it cannot be practiced in aircraft. So not a good idea to suddenly get into.