Lonewolf_50;
Is the escape maneuver based on best angle of climb or best rate of climb? Which "best" is "every ounce of performance" trying to achieve for you?
The question is an excellent one.
I do know the difference between the two speeds but in truth I'm not sure what the software is programmed for - I suspect rate of climb given how I've seen it perform in the sim. The performance is pretty spectacular, especially in a light aircraft. I once tried it in the sim, with a low weight...held the stick full-back, applied TOGA thrust and released the brakes. The aircraft rotated at about 90kts, it simulated a "scraping of the tail" so to speak, and lifted off at about 115kts and went into Alpha Floor immediately. It continued to climb at about 3000fpm; by the end of the runway (9500ft long), the aircraft was 3000' above the end of the runway - 20deg bank turns while climbing were not a problem. It was essentially an escape maneuver with turns.
What I do know from the FCOM is, for a maximum effort escape maneuver with the stick held full back and the aircraft "sits" just above AlphaProt, (
a prot + 1° ) and is only maintaining an AoA - the pitch attitude "floats" in relation to the AoA. Although the SOP is to firewall the thrust levers, the thrust is automatically set to TOGA in Alpha Floor mode. As described, the airplane will vary the AoA to stay just above the stall. In Normal Law it is not possible to pull hard enough to "stall" the airplane. The AFS limits the pitch rate change to keep the AoA out of the stall range. But under certain circumstances the AFS could go into Alpha Floor mode with the sudden increase in AoA - but that's how it's designed. In Normal Law, the pitch rate is limited by the AoA, (and the rate is still very respectable).
At high pitch angles during the escape maneuver, Normal Law still applies. It is only when the pitch attitude exceeds 50deg that the AFS reverts to 'Abnormal Attitude Law'. Reversion to
Alternate Law (with or without protections), is different, and is a function of autoflight capabilities/failures and associated systems, (hydraulics/electrics) and not pitch attitude.
Meekal;
For what it's worth, my discussion regarding go-arounds was more for information...I don't think this aircraft was in a "go-around" mode. As for what the crew did within a minute of the accident, we must wait for the recorders.
I understand both the "shock/surprise" response and the "ego" factor you describe. Disbelief may be the response to the first factor, and denial may be the response to the second. I do not believe these are broad, cultural issues but they could be training issues.
I think we cannot state anything about ATC until much later. There is not enough known about these communications, ATC's capabilities (what they saw on radar) and what was going on in the cockpit, to make statements of complicity, etc. I think we have to be very careful about affirming or attributing actions when we don't know about them.
PJ2