Talk:Flight envelope protection

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the aircraft project.

This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Correction needed

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.

Mregelsberger (talk) 12:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 143.252.80.100 (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be good if the makes of the aircraft involved in the incidents were given. Robauz (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 587 Override button

"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 195.198.42.140 (talk) 12:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight envelope protection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327095042/http://personales.upv.es/juaruiga/teaching/TFC/Material/Trabajos/AIRBUS.PDF to http://personales.upv.es/juaruiga/teaching/TFC/Material/Trabajos/AIRBUS.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]