AF 447 Thread No. 6

[Lyman]

AlphaZuluRomeo Thank you so much for your response.

First, whether 'g' or mechanical, (RTLU or 'g' airframe) we speak of a direct and powerful LIMIT. The type of limiting is not relevant, suffice to say, the limit exists to prevent airframe damage.

ALPHA PROT is a FLIGHT PATH Protection. 'g' limit is an airframe protection.

From a design point of view, some things of note: Any Limit is considered as a boundary, not subject to mitigation, it is on, or it is off. It is not a function, nor is it a method, of Flight Path control.

So no one has addressed my opinion that the climb up was a function of "g" inhibition of the THS. I hear that "Control (stick) was not sustained", "thus the THS remained unmoving." This same argument is used on the descent, "All he had to do....." etc.

My Point? 'g' limiting was the source of the shape of the climb curve, along with the PF input at the stick.

It was the PNF who SAID: "SO, WE HAVE LOST THE SPEEDS.........ALTERNATE LAW".

WHY? Because I think PF was flying thinking he was in NORMAL LAW, NOT ALTERNATE LAW, hence the REMINDER.

With 'g' values wandering above and also below thresholds for THS TRIM,
'g' was flying the Aircraft; the PF was inputting stick, and the results were derived from 'g', via the Computer FCS. NO THS TRIM, it is inhibited in this window(s). An increase in AoA allowed by 'g' sensing, not the Pilot.

This is mode confusion. Call the Pilot flying whatever you will, IF he thought he had one Law, and didn't (couldn't) relate it to basic control, it does not matter whether he was Yeager, Yogi, or YODA, the a/c was not sussable. "THE AIRCRAFT DID WHAT IS WAS DIRECTED TO DO."

My point, simply...SIMPLY is this.

This is a FLAW. All Pilot derived? I DON"T CARE. The a/c got to be a mystery, and it was lost.

There is not one pilot here who can honestly say he could have done better. PERIOD. And it does not matter for purpose of this discussion, imo.

ICE is not PROVEN. IT IS NOT EVEN A CONCLUSION SUBJECT TO, PROOF.

PITOTS failure is not PROVEN.

1. The aircraft STALLED

2. The aircraft did not recover.

At the STALL, the THS was full UP.

My proposition is this. All three pilots could have been TIRE, TIRE, TIRE! from the outset. Because the THS was FULL UP, the NOSE COULD NOT BE LOWERED.

IF THE THS had been neutral, the pilots could have pulled TIRE TIRE TIRE!
and the a/c would have recovered in spite of the wrong input. Had they continued their pull, it would have STALLED AGAIN.

Do you see? The a/c prevented a recovery.

NOW. How did it cause LOC? Because the Pilot got incremental nibbles of NOSE UP, as it would have in NORMAL LAW. And it STALLED at nil AS.

Discard 'g' protection (for the moment). The Pilot gets a BUNCH of NU elevator, and the a/c Stalls, immediately. The nose drops, he recovers (hopefully), and all is well.

Do you see this? I am not judgiing, moralizing, or defending. I am saying that for whatever the reason, the DIRECT cause of this disaster is the aircraft itself.

If you can patiently entertain that pov, let's discuss. Too many PPL's here stroking themselves on the graves of professional pilots, methinks (ok, that is a judgment).

Clandestino, either for reasons of ignorance or conceit, you continue to "misunderstand" or dismiss with great prejudice the posting of others. Anyone who snubs someone who has engaged you, with a picture of a book and a "read this" is too arrogant to waste my time in response.

btw. In the descent, the STALL WARN returns, and the PF is accused of NU. Several times. Why would the STALL WARNING trigger? And what effect would this have on 'g' Prot?

I'll wait, whoever sees where I'm going will likely be better at explaining why the PF "PULLED UP".............