Originally Posted by HN39
I think you may have missed the point of my remark, which is that the following BEA explanation does not match the Air Caraibes occurrence
I see what you mean now.
I have just checked the French version and the English translation seems accurate. I believe there is a possibility the BEA text is inaccurate and should say :
''If none of the three Mach values is valid, a Mach value close to
0.8 is used. For example, it is of the order of 4° at Mach 0.8''
Such wording would better match the Air Caraibes occurrence.
Originally Posted by AGBagb
I'd be very interested to hear Airbus pilots' thoughts on what might have happened if the Air Caraibe pilots (for there were 2 almost identical incidents...) had *not* made the quick decision to ignore the stall warnings, when flying through high-level turbulence, with iced pitots, and in alternate law.....
It would have greatly complicated the all issue and probably bring more confusion to an already very confusing situation.
AT THE TIME the procedure was to simultaneously pitch down and apply full thrust. In other words it would have unnecessarily destabilized a situation that was under control.
Those Air Caraibes crews did so well under such confusing environment.
Shame on the BEA and others ... to not have treated adequately this valuable information.