svarin:
02:14:20 - .1/FLR/FR0906010213 22833406AFS 1,,,,,,,FMGEC1(1CA1),INTERMITTENT
The failure has AFS (Auto Flight System) as its identifiers. AFS is Airbusese for Autopilot. But wasn't that A/P OFF at the beginning of the sequence ? And it was turned OFF by the aircraft itself, following Pitot probes failure. And now we find it as the identifier in an FMGEC fault, which means AFS detected a fault in FMGEC1. Who turned the A/P back ON and reactivated it ?
Good catch !!
Obviously this message never received the attention it maybe warranted..
Even looking at BEA's comment on this item reading a bit between the lines it becomes clear there might be something to it:
From BEA's second interim Report:
FMGEC1 (1CA1) (2 h 13)
ATA: 228334
Source: AFS
Identifiers: -
Class 1, INTERMITTENT
This message cannot be the trace of a reset which, in particular, excludes the
possibility of a manual shutdown. This message could be the consequence of
inconsistency between the two channels in the FMGEC (COM and MON). Such
an inconsistency could be the consequence of erratic input parameter values.
In any event, the effects of such a message could only be the disengagement
of automatic systems, whose associated
cockpit effect messages had already
been transmitted at 2 h 10.
The “INTERMITTENT” nature of the message means that the problem lasted for
less than 2.5 seconds.
Between the lines I read that this indeed seems to indicate that automatic systems have been disengaged. Which in turn could imply they had been re-engaged before after the first disengagement which triggered the 210 ECAM's.
The AD might indeed closely be related to this accident.
The ACARS message regarding Cabin Vertical speed is dated 1 min later than this. Which would mean that they were most likely not at CRZ altitude when the AFS was potentially re-engaged.
This would point indeed to two upsets:
Initial upset caused by UAS, recovered at an intermediate altitude (soemwhere between 10000 and 20000ft) which matches previous UAS incidents quite well btw.
A subsequent upset caused by the AFS mislead by the still unreliable but now consistent speed.
Question arising from this scenario: Down to which altitude could pitot icing be expected?
Anyway, this scenario could explain the tragic difference to the previous incidents.