Talk:Flight envelope protection
|WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft||(Rated Start-class)|
The following sentence, at the end of the chapter Function, makes no sense. Please correct.
"This ability could be stop accidents since it allows a pilot to make a quick evasive manoeuvre in response to a GPWS warning, or if another aircraft is spotted that might cause a mid flight incident."
What does it mean, that the "ability could be stop"? Is the meaning:
- This ability could prevent accidents, or
- This ability can be switched off to prevent accidents.
China Airlines Flight 006
This whole section is debatable, and seems to me to be short on truth. The reason flight 006 ended up in it's predicament is that the pilots allowed the plane to fly outside of its envelope in the first place. If the aircraft has been fitted with a Flight envelope protection system, the aircraft would not have entered the roll and vertical dive in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"though it can still be argued that an override button should be provided for contingencies such as China Airlines Flight 006"
Who argues this? It has already been concluded that the example of CAL006 is not valid as an argument against flight envelope protection, therefore the override button is not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Another exemple is Flight AF 447
This accident with a A330-203 concernes also the theme flight envelope. Here in Europe the accident leaves shocked professionals- first of all pilots. Now, as the final report is written, it is time to reflect the reasons. Only that way we can learn and make things bether as they are.
Concretely this accident shows a case of catastrophical ending when flying at the bottom end of flight envelope. Your listened cases are all accidents at the top end of the envelope. --Cosy-ch (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)