DozyWanabee,
Your post makes a very strong statement.
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
Rubbish - poorly researched article.
And it steers up the questions:
Did you do your research? Did you read the 3rd BEA Interim Report, paragraph 6 from the top of page 78, and paragraph 1 from the top of page 79, and did you understand them?
Did you read the many posts on this Forum, regarding the Stall Warning bogus behavior? Did you understand them, if you read them ?
It's clear, from the BEA Report, and it's clear from many posts on this Forum, that all the
Stall Warnings that occurred [B]During the entire "Fall, and attempt to recover from Stall", after 2:12:45, when the plane was on its way down, from 35000 ft (FL350), with the two pilots and Captain in the cockpit, were giving the wrong information!!!
From 35000ft and bellow, all the Stall Warnings have started as a result of Nose Down actions, and have ended as a result of Nose UP action, and thus each of them has mislead the pilots into believing that their corrective actions of ND were wrong, while NU actions were right, creating the deadly confusion that lasted to the end, and inhibiting the very corrective actions that were necessary, and encouraging the very wrong actions that were inducing them further back into the stall !!!.
8 of these bogus Stall Warnings were between 35000ft and 6000ft, which is recoverable height.
4 of these bogus Stall Warning were between 35000ft, and 30000ft, which what would one want more, in terms of recovery?
Based on the correct analysis of the BEA Report, I am completely surprised to not see an explicit recommendation in the Recommendation Section. The planned Human Interface research of the next phase, will probably address that.
So, therefore, the La Tribune Article, and Le Figaro Article are making a lot of sense.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
The stall warning sounded continuously from the apogee of the climb (at which point the aircraft approached and entered stall) for 57 seconds, after which point the aircraft was already unrecoverable.
Unrecoverable at 35000ft? What's the base of your claim?
An Airbus 310, approaching Orly, Paris, in 1994 has recovered at 800ft, from a stall at 4100 ft (yes 30900 ft lower!!!), and from a pitch of 60 degrees, and only 30knots airspeed. Report & CVR transcript, CVR voice, video clips are available on the net.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
It would appear that one thing that has not changed since 1988 is the predeliction on the part of certain parties to attempt to use the press to muddy the waters when the finger appears to be pointed in their direction.
In this case, it is exactly the opposite, the press is helping the truth.
Air France has a good share.
But the "a/c category" has a number of its own, besides the pitot tubes:
a. the Stall Warning,
b. the unannounced trimming of the THS (Machinebird post #57, etc...)
c. the lack of AOA indication (BEA report),
d. the lack of sharing stick position information between PF and PNF (recent posts),
and possibly others.
Originally Posted by
DozyWannabe
Machinbird,
It's a personal conclusion, but I think it's logical.
I've munged some of the FDR traces into a graphic here
Your graphs show clearly the 8 Stall Warnings, that between 35000 ft and 6000 ft, which is the recoverable window, have created confusion in the pilots and Captain minds.
Four (4) of these Wrong Stall Warnings were between 35000 ft and 30000ft - plenty of height to recover.
Do I need to explain more, why that is?
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
As the stall warning clicks off at around 2:11:47, the THS moves towards its limit of travel and the ground speed falls below 200kts. The THS took approx. 1 minute to move to the limit of nose-up travel from neutral. At this point the PF has been holding full back stick for approx. 5 seconds and will continue to do so for a further 25 seconds or so. To get the nose down and return the THS to neutral is going to take some time, and they're falling at speeds of up to 10,000ft/min.
The A310 that I've mentioned had at stall, the THS full NU, and Elevators full ND. Pilots understood early, and worked very hard, ND, to recover. Plane landed, within 30 minutes or so, at Orly, with no injury, or damage
All AF 447 needed, was to turn ND,and keep it that way - pitch was a lot less than the 60 degrees of the A310 - and continue to fall Nose Down with the 10000 ft/min speed, which would have accelerated soon to the appropriate speed to recover.
Please note that there is at least one post on this thread, that shows that Stall Recovery is possible also from a theoretical perspective.