Originally Posted by bearfoil
a/p loss: after the loss of autopilot, there were two Stall warnings. They cannot have been genuine, for the a/c commenced a climb without adding thrust, two things that would have caused a Stall post warning, if genuine, they were not.
Indeed, unless they suddenly magically entered a serious breeze, 100 knots or more, the AoA would not have changed. So why did those stall warnings take place? The warning after the climb was right on. Why did the PF see that caused him to pull up and not push down as is proper for a stall? That climb cost them a considerable amount of their 1/2 m v^2 energy.
Originally Posted by CONFiture
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOD
When would you like the stall warning to go off? Even at airspeeds below which the vane can work?? These vanes are substantial pieces of metal that can withstand the best part of 500K/1.0M. They are not little feathers that will read reliably at 20K IAS
...
OK - even when the spec/manufacturer of the vane says the IAS is way below the validity of the vane's spec?
What are the vane's spec ?
Would you like to ref a manufacturer documentation … ?
Because to me, by merely direct observation of those vanes, they are pieces of metal which behave like feather …
OK, that brings to mind an interesting question together with the original stall warnngs. I presume the vanes can freeze and collect frozen "stuff" at the same time the pitot's iced. Slight scratches on one surface and not the other could leave it unbalanced leading to a bad indication. That seems far fetched. I don't know if it is impossible.