Originally Posted by
CelticRambler
Le Figaro today publishes a report of a near-perfect repeat of the AF447 incident - but without the 200+ fatalities
I must
disagree, Sir.
- no speed data loss on this A340, or so it seems so far
- on the other hand, no overspeed alarm on AF447 (which would explain the climb)
(and I know that the CVR mentionned "je crois qu'on a une vitesse de fou, là" or something like that, but it was much later, far into the stall).
- no mention of a reversion to alternate on the A340 from Caracas. Assuming the NORMAL LAW, the climb seems adequate, then. If overspeed, then reduce thrust and
climb, that's the way the high speed protection works
AFAIK.
- if still in NORMAL LAW, the stall was not to be feared on this A340 : the overspeed protection worked, I see no reason that the high AoA protection would not have kicked in, if needed (perhaps it has, for all we know).
NB: This new incident should (and is, apparently) investigated. This is not a subject of debate for me.
But the article seems to link AF447 & this incident far too much.
Paper selling agenda?
