Gulfstreamaviator:
Yes, that's understood. You're correct to warn against placing too much faith in simulation. Especially when performance is extrapolated to ranges outside of the actual data points used to program the simulator, inaccuracies in the "modeled" flight parameters should be assumed to exist. For instance, airplane behavior beyond the critical AOA would be one example of unknown extrapolated data accuracy.
We discussed that at the time and agreed that this would not be a significant factor in whether or not we could re-create the sequence of events accurately
enough for learning purposes as we executed variations on the crew response and systems behavior based upon the factual data then available to Bombardier. Some fellows from engineering, maintenance training and simulation were interested too. From what I heard later, Bombardier did a full-on re-creation of the accident sequence with the NTSB as a part of the investigation of the accident. I'm sure they'd done more research and testing by then. Yet it's my understanding that those later simulations produced outcomes which were similar to ours. The final report conclusions seem to agree for the most part. I think any differences are most likely the result of different assumptions regarding crew actions rather than simulation error.
In any case, thanks for bringing it up.
It was a most interesting learning experience for me. I'd been flying the plane for awhile, but I knew a whole lot more about operating the plane AND the simulator after participating in this unique exercise. Many thanks to the staff at Bombardier/DFW.
westhawk