Timeline for Why do passenger jets accept input that will cause the aircraft to perform dangerous maneuvers it was not designed for?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2016 at 7:40 | comment | added | Radu094 | Airbus degrades to Alternate law (/w or w/out protections) after single or some dual failures when the computers can still figure out how to protect the aircraft. Some dual and most triple failure degrade to direct law. It's not about the control surface deflection (control law) but about computers having enough info to enact a protection | |
| Jan 21, 2015 at 17:25 | comment | added | Jan Hudec | @VladimirF: Depends. On Airbus it will degrade to alternate law where the stick deflection still correspond to vertical acceleration and roll rate (so they are still limited) unless the problem is with inertial reference. Boeing always interprets yoke deflection as control surface deflection, so it does not have alternate law. As for Su100, it aims for Airbus commonality, but it might differ in this; I don't know. | |
| Jan 20, 2015 at 10:19 | comment | added | Vladimir F Героям слава | But the direct law is enabled in many situations when the computer sees a problem and will accept any input. | |
| Jan 19, 2015 at 20:35 | history | answered | Jan Hudec | CC BY-SA 3.0 |