In-flight upset - 154 km west of Learmonth, WA, 7 October 2008,

Following the second in-flight upset, the crew continued to review the ECAMmessages and other indications. The first ECAM message they noticed was F/CTLALTN LAW (PROT LOST). 14 The next messages were recurrences of the NAVIR 1 FAULT and F/CTL PRIM 3 FAULT messages. The crew reported that the IR1FAULT light and the PRIM 3 FAULT light on the overhead panel wereilluminated. No other fault lights were illuminated.The crew reported that by this time ECAM messages were frequently scrolling,with each new caution message being placed at the top of the list. The NAV IR 1FAULT message kept recurring, together with several other messages, such asNAV GPS FAULT, and they could not effectively interact with the ECAM toaction and/or clear the messages. Master caution chimes associated with the ECAMmessages were frequently occurring, together with aural stall warnings andoverspeed warnings. The crew stated that these constant aural alerts, and theinability to silence them, were a significant source of distraction.1.1.5 Diversion to LearmonthAt 0446:10, the captain made a public announcement to the cabin, advising that thecrew were dealing with flight control problems, and telling everyone to remainseated with their seat belts fastened. The second officer contacted the cabin againby interphone to ask a flight attendant to send the first officer to the flight deck.The captain reported that, after the second upset event, he observed that theautomatic pitch trim (autotrim) was not functioning 15 and he began trimming theaircraft manually. The crew advised that, because the autotrim was not working,they thought the flight control system was in direct law. 16With the exception of the loss of autotrim, the captain reported that the aircraft wasflying normally. At 0447:25, he disconnected the autothrust to minimise anypotential problems associated with the erroneous air data information affecting theelectronic engine control units. He then flew the aircraft without the autopilot orautothrust engaged, and using the standby instruments, for the remainder of theflight.The first officer returned to the flight deck at 0447:40, taking over from the secondofficer in the right control seat while the second officer moved to the third occupantseat. The crew discussed the situation, and the captain stated that he would continueflying the aircraft.141516The crew reported that they did not recall seeing amber crosses on the PFDs, which were meant tobe displayed if the flight control system was in alternate law or direct law. The aircraftmanufacturer advised that there was no technical reason why these amber crosses would not havebeen displayed on the occurrence flight.A ‘USE MAN PITCH TRIM’ message was not displayed to the crew on their PFDs as, at the timeof the occurrence, this message was only displayed if the flight control system was in direct law.The aircraft manufacturer advised that this problem was being addressed with a new designstandard, which was certified in 2011.The flight control system was in alternate law from 0445:11 until the end of the flight. Autotrimwas generally available in alternate law, but it was lost in this case due to the sequence of faultmessages associated with the FCPCs (PRIMs) (section 2.2.2).- 5 -