Originally Posted by airtren #463
You seem to feel very strongly about "not following a procedure/rule" being a reason of not being an "intentional" climb.
Yes I do, and there is one simple reason: an airline pilot lives by SOPs and "flies by the book." There are no "individual actions" anymore, in the cockpit of a transport aircraft. Cockpit discipline and crew coordination and communication in normal and abnormal circumstances is what keeps everyone safe when something bad happens. Remove that and the flight is at risk. It is no more complicated than that.
I am aware that there may be "energy for the climb without pushing the thrust levers up a bit", but that misses the point entirely. No matter how it was done, any pitch-up at all is absolutely the wrong thing to have happen and the expectation is that it would be resisted with all necessary force on the stick to maintain level flight with the thrust unchanged.
Yours, and the reason posted by Lonewoolf - no additional throttle during the climb - and above all - perhaps not a surprise to you - the energy conservation calculation showing that the kinetic energy at FL350 and FL375, based on the BEA text are matching the climb potential energy, showing that no additional power was applied, are convincing.
With the risk of repeating what was perhaps already said, the implication of the calculation results is that while it shows that no additional power/throttle was applied during the climb, it also shows that no additional energy came from outside the A/C, like from the air turbulence providing additional lift.
However, what the calculation cannot show, is weather the air turbulence had a downward gradient, adding a downward force to the A/C weight, and thus delaying the A/C pitch-up response to the NU command, in spite of the correct response of the control surfaces.
The effect of this can be that the PF entered a gradually more forceful NU command, proportional with the delay of the A/C response, which resulted at the time of the change of air turbulence gradient into a sudden, much more aggressive pitch than intended, and a more aggressive climb at 7000ft/min.
Sorry
airtren, I may be mis-reading your post but according to these paragraphs it appears that you believe that the pitch up itself was a necessary manoeuvre, and I cannot think of a single good reason why aft sidestick would be applied within seconds of the autopilot and autothrust disconnect. Assuming the event occurred in stable, level flight, it is unquestioningly the wrong response to a loss of airspeed information and a disconnection of the autopilot.
And while it is quite possible that the BEA Update did not include all communications between the PF and the PNF on a timeline, it appears to me that this pitch-up action took place unilaterally, without the PF announcing what he was doing, what the drill to be actioned was, an what the PNF was to do.
I am of the view, supported by the BEA Update that the aircraft was pitched up past 10 degrees attitude at FL350
and kept there with aft sidestick, instead of pushing the stick full forward and keeping it there as is the SOP for stall recovery.
Perhaps, as I have said, there are other reasons for the pitch up which were initially unintentional and beyond the immediate control of the PF. However, the BEA Update makes it clear that sidestick input was aft with a few momentary exceptions, commanding up elevator, from which the THS slowly followed up upon, as it was designed to do and the stick was held back during the approach to the stall and in the stall.
I think it is this initial pitch-up, and then the aft sidestick position at the entry into the stall and held during the stalled descent, with a momentary relaxation, that needs to be explained.