You misunderstand, and I was less than clear. The THS was FUNCTIONALLY unavailable. It was "LOCKED" by "DESIGN". Not a deliberate blunder, but a blunder, due blind spot created by belief in a less than "best" system.
a/p LOSS - STALL...............Phase ONE (my description)
STALL-STALL - THS migration........Phase TWO (again, mine)
Rest of Descent - Impact...... Phase THREE. (my label).
Look at how clearly the THS movements occupy the PHASE TWO, and are absent from ONE, and THREE?
The THS is inhibited above 1.25g and below .75 g.
Where are the 'Disinhibited' g regions? Climbing, she was gyrating, experiencing g excursions. At Apogee, she was 'docile'/g compliant, and the THS rumbles UP. Descending, she bucks, ROLLS, and nods, g non compliant (per THS LOgIC). THS UNAVAILABLE BY (lack of) DESIGN.
This is opinion, and to grow it wants an FBW (330) wonk, and that is NOT ME.
(You inject: "But she was recoverable, and Pilot.....". That is not germane to the THS FUNCTION as relates 'g'.....) Yes the PF commanded NU, and the THS complied; stipulated, and rejected as not relevant? Availability of THS is this topic, for me, relative to DESIGN.
Maybe a different thread, for my opinion goes beyond what we see, here, even in the traces. We could set up an exercise independent of this accident, because DESIGN is a concrete thing, and can disguise itself in "traces". OR PF inouts, etc. Mixing a theoretical with an actual may not be appropriate?
Last edited by Lyman; 24th August 2011 at 16:09.