HN39:
I am not referring to the BEA report, but on the continuing series of threads on this crash.
Some pages back, there was the A340/A330 incident where was discussed "a near miss" where one plane did a bit of a zoom climb. Also, when I went back to some of PJ2's older posts, I found something he'd dug out of another report. That is what I put in qoutes in the post where I address Takata and PJ2.
EDIT: here is what caught my eye.
The post was PJ2 responding to you:
HN39;
I was unable to locate "Appendix B". If the report has something to contribute to an understanding of the AFS especially the reconfiguration of flight laws from Nz to AlphaProt Law, I'm sure what there is in this report will be available and its relevance hopefully established. There are some primary differences in that event: For an AlphaProt Law response, the aircraft must be in Nz Law as the response (HIGH AoA and PITCH ATT) wouldn't be available in either Pitch Alternate law.
As we are aware, the AD that was released on December 22, 2010 states, "However, in some cases, the autopilot orders may be inappropriate, such as possible abrupt pitch command. In order to prevent such event which may, under specific circumstances, constitute an unsafe condition, this AD requires an amendment of the Flight Manual to ensure that flight crews apply the appropriate operational procedure."
The AD does not mention those "specific circumstances", nor do we know to what event(s) the characterization of "abrupt" refers, if any. Perhaps the dots are still too far apart to see viable connections but this event and the one to which I refer above concerning the UAS QRH Drill, are possible areas to focus upon along with weather.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/44963...ml#post6435101
To be clear, PJ2 took the position during that element of the discussion that the aircraft was stable, (see the part of the post where he addressed takata before he addressed you).
If you think I have misinterpreted this, or I am making too far of an intuitive leap, please advise.
What I gathered from the 340/330 near miss was that an uncommanded pitch input was made, and the pilots got it sorted out in a few thousand feet, and returned to flying on altitude and airpseed, and arrived at destination. What made that interesting was that another aircraft saw it. As I understand it, the report was initially more concerned with the "near miss" than perhaps anomalies in flight control inputs.
The other incidents discussed, which included uncommanded flight control inputs, altitude excursions, and various upsets that the pilots recovered from have been part and parcel to this discussion at various times. Air Carriebe and Qantas were two of them.
If my synthesis is turning out a stew, instead of a cake, please advise.