Well done, OK465! Seems I still owe you Saint-Exupery's quote. Oh well...
Originally Posted by Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The machine does not isolate man from the great problems of nature but plunges him more deeply into them
Good old Dick Bach's "Steel, aluminum, nuts and bolts" is applicable too.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
graph of V/S commanded vs V/S actual is missing time marks
2:09:00 to appx 2:10:06
Originally Posted by Machinbird
What is the source of this graph?
BEA interim 3
Originally Posted by CONF iture
The crew had to deal with something bizarre ... and the BEA has not said a single word about it.
They haven't issued a final report yet. Hurry up and make your concerns known to them before they settle on the final version. You might just be onto something and if they ignore your wealth of expertize, you can always expand on "How come that records of spurious V/S selections have no correlation whatsoever in aeroplane's behaviour while ALT CRZ mode is engaged" thesis and get master's degree from the Institute of Conspiracy Theories, Department of Aeronautics.
Originally Posted by gums
Trust me, I am very familiar with mach and AoA. I also appreciate a design of the fly-by-wire control laws that takes into account of all the aero crapola.
I trust you on F-16. Since I have to be blunt: F-16 is unstable fighter, A330 is stable passenger aeroplane. One has wing optimized for maneuver and supersonic flight, the other for high-subsonic cruise. No points for guessing which is which.
Originally Posted by gums
Until you have supersonic flow over the entire wing, then the basic AoA works like we expect.
Again, some general principles apply for both F-16 and A330 but not each and every. A330 wing starts decreasing its AoAcrit at mere 0.3 Mach - that's why graph on page 20 of interim 3 looks so crooked.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
your hero Asseline would not have been alive to lie about the aircraft in the first place
Carefully there! Captain Michel Asseline blurted-out that engine did not responded as required in shell-shocked state. Eventually he settled down and accepted the facts of his fateful flight, as put down by BEA. He does not support any of our "Airbus is soooo complicated and veeeeery dangerous" claiming friends. Also, while they try to appear they are fighting on his behalf, they go great lengths to never explicitly state so and all they offer is series of nudge-nudge-wink-wink-you-know-what-I-mean.
Great shame about Habsheim disaster is that some of us (well, IMHO it's actually most) allow that the smokescreen of technical discussion obscures the real issue: how come that Air france and Mulhouse Aeroclub came to idea that it's just fine to fly planeload of passengers during display flight! Mind you: they were not stupid but somehow they were lead to the point they considered it to be OK. To draw out that thought and decision process into the light would be fitting monument to the three victims.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
process will be in 10 or 15 years (St Odile and Concorde style)
Now you mention St Odille: it's another tragedy where technical talk has drowned out the HF anaylsis. Most pilot just remember it vas 3300 fpm misselection instead of 3.3 FPA and that's about it. FWIW the crew undershot the final approach track and were well left of it when they hit the mountain. Had they been more concentrated on horizontal navigation (as the report claims) and got established or overshot to the right, they would have missed the mountain. Whether they would realized something was terribly wrong when cloudbreaking above the plain south of Strasbourg or they would have hit the fields instead of forest, anyone's guess is as good as mine.
Originally Posted by Turbine D
Airbus failed to provide complete key memorization items in their flight instructions for the A-330, leaving out for the most part, high altitude and high Mach cruise situations.
Did not. Airbus procedures were clear, simple and not adhered to. AF FCTM was out of step.
Originally Posted by gretchenfrage
Simply telling the pilots to read the five-color s#!thouse on reflecting and worn-out screens with a multitude of same color digital indicators and FMAs with five windows on three rows with zillions of different abbreviations is, to cite the Borg, futile....
Cry me a river about it. Unless you're capable of performing just that, don't go flying, you're gonna hurt yourself and others in the process. It's a tough world outside.
Originally Posted by Turbine D
that if A/P drops out for any reason (and on any type) in cruise, pilot is handed an a/c he has quite possibly never actually flown at this speed or altitude.
See previous entry.
Originally Posted by Lyman
The a/c did not start upward until the PITCH UP reached ten degrees
Prove it. Win Nobel for physics. Go down in history as "The man who disproved Bernoulli and everything we thought we knew about flying"
Originally Posted by CONF iture
I presume that if an AD had to ground a fleet, the manufacturer would have to share more that the only cost of the repair.
EASA AD 2009-195 had four months compliance period, starting on Sep07 2009. Is it conspiracy? Is it possible that by the time of issue we had 20-odd cases of freezing pitots and going ALTN, some involving Air France, one involving Goodrich pitots, all of them landing uneventfully, bar one so there was no perceived need to hurry? No use in having the right to know without the capability to understand.
Originally Posted by RR NDB
this is an complete ABSURD! And ongoing?
Taken completely out of its context, it would be quite useful as the best evaluation of this thread in quite a long time.