Hi
Originally Posted by
etudiant
Hi AlphaZulu Romeo,
My impression is that ALTER is a publication by a somewhat marginal union of the type that are widespread in France
Spot on. ALTER is the union, in fact. BSPN is its publication. The rest is perfectly analysed.
Originally Posted by
etudiant
I interpreted their comment as referring to the procedure to follow in case of a stall warning ( rather than the UAS procedures, which the crew clearly did not follow, perhaps because they got sidetracked by the stall), which
afaik was TOGA thrust and small pull up.
Mhmmm, OK. Perhaps, indeed ALTER implyied that. I don't think it's true either,
AFAIK the crew did not recognize the stall (so no reason to try to apply a related procedure).
Will have to try to correlate what's in this old procedure and the FDR traces, but I'm pretty sure I'll find far more differences to agree with ALTER's views.
Originally Posted by
etudiant
I'm still trying to verify the claim of an actual high altitude stall flight test of an A330.
I'm very interested to know if you can find something : please let us know
Will do the same, of course
Originally Posted by
etudiant
To do this w/o a recovery chute, using a 100++ million dollar airplane just boggles my mind. On the other hand, it sounds very French, they will try insane things and often pull them off.
Uh? Can't remember having tried
that much insane things...
Originally Posted by
Chu Chu
But if the airspeed is below 60 kts, how could the airplane not be stalled?
Simple : Speed indication failure.
Let's imagine... Ash cloud or severe pitot icing. Speed drop to < 60. Is your aircraft stalled? No, only wrong speed indication. Does the stall warning sounds? Yes if we follow your idea. Then crew applies stall recovery procedure => nose low => speed increase => overspeed. Miiiiiip bad idea.
Never the less, I
do agree with you that cutting off the stall warning under (sensed/indicated) 60kt in AF447 was not good. But I didn't find how to do better, for now.
As JD-EE noted, the real airspeed was more in the 100kt range. Pivotable pitots (to let them follow the airflow) would have helped, there. Those exist on the Rafale fighter (and perhaps others), as shown
on this pic.
By the way,
does anybody know why such combined probes (pitot+AoA) seem to be rare? Not so easy to make/maintain? Too expensive? Never tought about? Not deemed useful on a liner, which should not reach such exotic AoAs?
Originally Posted by
Chu Chu
I guess you don't want a stall warning sitting at the gate, though surely there are other ways to prevent that.
That's more simple: check aircraft on ground (sensors on the undercarriage, already there for other purposes, like auto-brake, spoiler deployment...) = no stall warning.