Originally Posted by
CONF iture (in the other thread)
france info
[...]
Also a desire to 'protect' the Airbus technology to the public eyes ... ?
"The airplane did not stall, il s'est enfoncé (it has gone deep ?), thanks to the protections."
"The protections have been effective but not understood by the pilots."
Well, on
that you could call Mr Feldzer a liar, plain & simple :
- the aircraft did stall
- most of the protections were inop (ALT LAW + rejected ADRs)
However, I think it's more a -very poorly phrased- attempt of vulgarization. Which by the way will indeed somehow "protect" the aircraft maker reputation, for sure.
In french, "décrocher" (to stall) may be heard as a "violent" phenomenon to the general public. OTOH "s'enfoncer" (to sink) is a "softer" thing... and may be more "meaningful" to an uneducated ear (no offense).
And
protections seem to stand for some flight laws/FBW features, here (i.e. maintaining pitch when stick is released and/or maintaining 1g)... Bad phrasing again, using a precise, technically meaningful word in an "oblique" sense.
I listened to the entire interview (thanks for the link) and did not learn much (if not nothing). It is clearly intended for the "general public", hence my interpretation above. Too bad one doesn't think it's worth to explain correctly... I'm sure it's possible, with a little (more?) goodwill.
------
@ jcjeant : "The pilots in the simulators were able to see they were in a stalling aircraft .. why not the AF pilots ?"
That's
not what is said. It is said they (those who take a sim tour) were able to recover because they
knew [by the briefing] what was going on. Not because they
saw it [from the instruments].
(my comments between [brackets])
I think your other (previous) questions were purely rethorical ones, and don't call for an answer.
