Make up your mind
Ashling, is it a protection or it is not ?
If it prevents the aircraft to approach Alpha Max it has to be a limitation ...
Now a question for you :
If High AoA protection when activated prevents an aircraft to approach Alpha Max (in this case by 4 degrees), when will we ever reach Alpha Max that Airbus is so proud of ?
NTSB did not criticize Airbus – They just mention that the flight envelope protections did not allow an increase in AoA despite the fact that a margin of 4 degrees existed before reaching Alpha Max, not Alpha Stall, Alpha Max.
Originally Posted by Ashling
You refuse to accept that it was the speed control that prevented the aircraft from being able to flare effectively not the FBW.
Where did I refuse that maintaining more speed to the water would not have helped for the flare ?
Please quote ?
FBW has nothing to do either, don’t be confused.
On your side you’re not ready to consider that a margin of 4 degrees existed in the aerodynamics (NTSB BEA Airbus do not refute this, do they ?) before reaching Alpha Max (which is
not Alpha Stall
Ashling … just not yet) and therefore the potential to improve the touchdown, as Sully was trying to, was a reality that the flight envelope protections refused to authorize.
You prefer to scare around with a catastrophe scenario … go ahead, but remember, Alpha Max is
not Alpha Stall, and if Normal Law is afraid of the
phugoid oscillations, just give Direct Law to Sully, I’m sure he will deal OK with them.
Still nothing in the FCOM on the
Phugoid Oscillation Damping function … ?