Originally Posted by ChrisJ800
Originally Posted by Xcitation
Indeed, a major puzzle why ignore the stall warnings for 3 or 4 minutes? In the entire transcript of the incident not once was "stall" or "décrochage" ever mentioned by any of the 3 pilots.
Reasons
1. Both FOs overloaded for 4 minutes and did not hear it.
2. Both FOs heard it and ignored it as being false (as per recent QF72 etc malfunction.) But why not verbalize that?
3. Both FOs didn't understand it/unfamiliar "<Stall><Stall>. What's that?". Would the french décrochage or flat line tone been better warning? Were they verbalizing that they did not understand it. Perhaps confused in the heat of the moment. Or did "What's that?" refer to something else.
4. Both FOs heard it and accepted it and did not know what to do. Again why not verbalize that?
5. PF believed he was applying a correct procedure of stick back, apply TOGA and airbus protections especially alpha prot would prevent the bus from stalling with minimal height loss.
Good call. I lost sight of that. ALT LAW occurred at the outset when AP off.
PF immediately 3/4 stick back for no known reason. After 20 seconds PNF states "ALT LAW, Protections Lo"(st). By then the speed had decayed and they were dancing the edge of the flight envelope.
PF was over controlling from the get go. Large scale stick inputs, thrust set at TOGA and then idle, Air Brakes deployed. Ignoring PNF directions. Did he panic?
Sadly if PF had left the controls alone and sat on his hands it could have been a different story. Near the end he verbalizes his desire for max nose up thus confirming it was intentional SS input. This would fit him not being aware of ALT LAW or not understanding it.
But I’ve been at maxi
nose-up for a while
No no no don’t climb
So go down