Originally Posted by CONF iture
Due to the AoA discrepancy, it is very probable that the following STATUS message was displayed on ECAM to the AF447 crew :
RISK OF UNDUE STALL WARNING
I think that BEA should be informed about your concerns. There's a faint possibility they believe that two agreeing AoA probes outvoted the third. It is of utmost importance to discover which version is correct.
Originally Posted by Diagnostic
I was just quoting your mention of that number
Yup, my mistake. It wasn't 32, it was 33 before and four between the accident and publication of interim 2. Thank you for pointing me towards the more reliable source.
Originally Posted by Diagnostic
that only addresses one reaction - to the stall warning
Yup, because that made the difference between 37 happy landings and one crash. Other crews may not followed procedures, but they kept the aeroplane aloft.
Originally Posted by Svarin
Moreover, I am greatly interested in aileron authority and response to SS inputs. It appears that right inboard aileron maximum deflection remains limited to a modest amount.
If you look closer it seems that it's not just right inboard aileron. Left inboard aileron also goes only to about 5° up and no more. Is it normal to have ailerons with different maximum up and down deflection? Is it usual? Is it only Airbus specialty? We have the right to know!
Regarding the aileron authority: do you remember what aileron authority you had when stalling your first trainer? Widebody plummeting oceanwards at AoA higher than 35° is bound to have it even worse than that.