Continue to be far less than fluent in AB Flight Law. In an attempt to unwind back toward initial upset (I am convinced there was one), There is an interesting video of a HS failure on a light twin at high speed at low altitude, a Partenavia. The a/c was attempting a crisp pull up into a "loop", and the HS failed, downward, as you would expect. If 447's nose had dropped, perhaps a last gasp effort of the a/p as it dropped out, having sensed the Unreliable a/s as low, and with a raised AoA, would be for it to lower the nose. It is possible that crew, perhaps surprised and not a little overwhelmed at the auto disconnect, were thereby confronted with an overspeed a short while later. If it developed, and they found Alt. Law unhelpful in an urgent need to arrest a/s, would that explain their attempt at Direct Law by defeating two critical computers by switching them off? (FrequentSLF posed this bit).
If in any case the HS was overloaded in a high speed input, suffered damage, and failed downward, that might be considered consistent with a VS failure as BEA divined, "Forward" would then be a misunderstanding, but still retain validity, though not a demonstration of failure at impact with water.
Why not give BEA all latitude in 'translation' issues, and 'mistakes' in jurisdictions or protocol, to this extent, the document still reads biased, impatient, less than technical, and political. I seriously expect that BEA would want to correct their omission of all scientific 'medical' information, given that the passengers may be able to demonstrate in many ways what even the CVR/FDR could not.
Again, I think it likely some failure of the tail and/or aft pressure bulkhead occurred at high speed, post ACARS. Even if the tail failed during ACARS tx, is it not possible evidence was 'backed up'? Also, ACARS is mx, it doesn't troubleshoot? Rudder Travel Limiter loss could be its 'understanding' of a catastrophic empennage failure? Though the VS was gone, the computer may sense it as 'there goes the RTL'. With a loss of hydraulic pressure consistent with separation, its tx might be what ? If the VS loss happened when the ACARS was 'busy' or after 0214? With the possibility of statics problems and/or pressure loss in cabin, the warning may be doing its task as designed, 'faster than 1800'/min.' is consistent with a complete loss of pressure in the cabin, is it not?
My Edit. Regardless who is 'responsible' for autopsy data to be missing from the report, it is a glaring error. If the argument gets more attention than the data, you will know it was deliberate and political. No one could notice its absence without demanding its subsequent inclusion via 'append'.
IMO
Last edited by Will Fraser; 6th July 2009 at 15:45.