Has anyone else gained the impression that PF actions, appear to assume 'Normal' law ? - despite acknowledgements of Alternate reversion soon after the AP disconnect sequence.
If so, does this indicate a stress reversion to Normal law ss inputs by PF, confused training, or lack of understanding just how sensitive the a/c is at cruise altitude to manual control...
I don't wish to criticise, but the focus on what this that or the other instrument was displaying, where this that or the other switch was set or not set, and what was being said is all but immaterial once you look at the gross insensitivity of manual flight control... and what appears to be an assumption, at least on the part of PF, that the answer to almmost everything has simply got to be stick back (and possibly more thrust)
... only when explicitly countermanded, did PF try anything else.
The meaning and dangers of MAX ALT (recommended) being exceeded were acknowledged by PNF & PF, but whereas coarse NU had been used to get there, only weak, tentative and ineffectual ND is observed as the response.
Here we have an extreme FEAR of any ND inputs (speed fear)
Here we have a seeming belief that NU inputs at the very edge of the High Alt flight envelope, in Alternate Law, are perfectly acceptable.
The 'speed fear' can perhaps be explained by the known UAS - the NU inputs as a response a serious failure by PF (and yes, its been said PNF should then & there taken firm control)
Let us also not forget that the 'silent & unobserved' Alternate Law THS movement - undoubtedly a big factor in the stability of the stalled pitch attitude, requiring large ND for long periods (many tens of seconds) to overcome...
I am glad the BEA have reported their concerns over this unfortunate oversight.
Last edited by HarryMann; 30th July 2011 at 10:21.