Originally Posted by
CONF iture
And what does it change to the fact that your following statement is plain wrong ?
I meant exactly what I said, "theoretically" - meaning that the system may not necessarily behave that way at present, but it would be a small matter to change the functionality (certification would be another matter though). The fact is that sidestick inputs not following priority switch are summed, so a full left deflection on one and a full right deflection on the other would command a roll rate of 0.
I'm not going to be your monkey and go dig documents up, because I don't have the time.
Initially you state it is :
"all in the CVR traces - down there in black and white (along with red, blue and green in this case)"
but when caught out it is suddenly only :
"pulled from memory" ?
Yes - the second one (which you so charmingly refer to as "catching me out" - I prefer to think of it as reacting to an overly pedantic nitpicking exercise on your behalf), was me going back to the BEA's translation - the first was based on my notes (from discussion of the French report), because I'm a busy guy at the moment and don't have time to go around linking documents.
But the point is, whatever your CVR quotes are, they show one thing :
2 PNF had no idea what PF was doing with its sidestick, at best they were guessing.
Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).
And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"
Very different meaning !
How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.
The problem is that, like Gretchenfrage, you're coming at this from the preconceived decision that the Airbus control philosophy is bad and less safe than the old yoke, then you try to fit the circumstances of this accident to fit the narrative that you've already arrived at.
No he did not.
Or quote the report reference … ?
There is no such thing as :
"partially disabling the alpha-floor protection".
I told you I'm not going to talk about Habsheim on this thread. I've already tried to open a PM dialogue with you in good faith, but you're insisting on it being in public - if you must, go dig up the AH&N thread that was fairly recent and post in that, but I'm not likely to have the time to look at it often.
That said...
Originally Posted by AF296 accident report
"2.2.3 Flight preparation by the crew ... The training given to the pilots emphasized all the protections from which the A320 benefits with respect to its lift which could have given them the feeling, which indeed is justified, of increased safety. In particular, the demonstration of the activation of the safety features and protection of this aircraft may lead one to consider flight approaching one of the limitations (especially the one related to angle of attack) as a foreseeable flight condition since lift is guaranteed. ... The choice to inhibit the automatic go-around protection (Alpha Floor) resulted from the need to eliminate this protection if flight at 100 feet or above is planned at an angle of attack higher than the one activating this protection. The inhibition in this case can only be achieved in practice by pressing and holding the two switches placed on the throttles. After 30 seconds, inhibition becomes permanent for the rest of the flight. This decision is compatible with the objectives expressed by the Captain to maintain a height of 100 feet and seems to confirm that the incursion below 100 feet was not considered by him at this stage. In effect, below 100 feet, this protection is not active." (page 18, French version)