Gerard C, thank you for your response.
Pilots who, actually, flew "ALT law" at high altitude, reported difficult control of the a/c.
OK, difficult, challenging ... requires either different technique or more effort than hand flying in normal law. Right?
If that's the case, this mode of flying would need to be practiced in order for pilots to develop a feel for doing it when required.
Agree?
From what we see, bank angle control required VERY large ss inputs. In this situation, it seems difficult to criticize large ss NU inputs by PF.
Do you say this under the assumption that most pilots do not get the opportunity to hand fly the A330 in Alt 2 law at cruise altitude?
I think OK456's points are worth accomodating.
That can explain the initial nose up, if the aircraft was not Straight and Level at the point of "you have it, robot taking a timeout, old chap."
Imho, the initial nose up is a reaction to the loss of 360' (35,024'-34,664') in just 4 seconds (02:10:05 / 02:10:09) that is "only" a 5400 ft/minute rate. Any pilot flying an RVSM route will react very quickly to this kind of altitude variation.
Understood. Most pilots you know will also take the correction out as they approach the desired altitude. You make a correction for a deviation that you notice, then you make a counter correction to re-establish the performance you require (Airspeed, Alt, etc). While the trace shows a series of corrections and counter corrections in roll, the same cannot be said for pitch.
mm43
PIO would seem to be the answer, but don't forget that post 2:10:51 the aircraft wasn't within a 'normal' flight envelope. Worth looking at is the yaw damper, the rudder and the lateral 'g' traces. Once in the 'mush' the aircraft was 'nodding' and rolling/banking in a synchronized manner as well as 'fish tailing'.
Thanks, will need to look at that again when I am on a PC that loads images. (Bear, reserve further comment for you until I have done so).
RudderRudderRat: I think you may be confusing spatial disorientation with sensed accelerations
.
Clandestino: The second one, if not corrected by visual references to instruments or outside world, inevitably leads to first one.
It's a basic human limitation no eugenics crossbreeding programe will ever be able to eradicate.
That got me chortling.
If none of alleged 32 losses of all IAS indications in high level icing conditions on 330/340s before AF447 ended in PPRuNeable incident (that is, incident discussed on PPRuNe), then your point of systemic error certainly can not be completely valid. Yes, there was problem with sensors. Yes, airlines and manufacturers were doing something to solve it but they were not in a great hurry, after all, there were 32 crews that coped with the problem successfully. Now we have one that did not and it is absolute imperative (categorical, if you speak Kant) to find out why. It is "the Comet mystery" of our day and age.
The answer does not necessarily lie in any cockpit. It may lie in any number of dark corners of "the system" as it currently operates.