Originally Posted by OK 465
We (he) know(s), I don't.
He knows that deep stall has specific meaning: the stall that cannot be exited by using aerodynamic means that are normally at aeroplane's disposal i.e. you need to deploy antispin chute to exit it. He knows that only practical mean to get into deep stall with airliner is to get the stabilizer and elevators in wings' wake when stalled. He knows that the only known way to achieve it is to include T-tail in aeroplane's design. He has seen some A330s and concluded that there are no T-tailed A330s. Therefore he knows A330 is not susceptible to deep stalls.
Do you now know that A330 is not susceptible to deep stalls or do you have issue or few with what I've written?
Argument that "No transport aeroplane has been flown so out of the envelope as AF447 so we don't know what is so far out and there might be deep stall area somewhere out there" is not particlarly meaningful or true and is similar to:
Originally Posted by Golgafrinchan captain, as quoted by Douglas Adams
To those who said that they had a feeling soap wasn't found in mines, the Captain had ventured to suggest that perhaps that was because no one had looked hard enough, and this possibility had been reluctantly acknowledged.
Originally Posted by Aileron Drag
This stall was induced by the pilot pulling the nose up into and beyond 'coffin corner'
Absolutely not. Coffin corner is altitude at which 1g stall line intersects Mach bufffet line. Only overpowered, low Mach no limited aeroplanes are capable of reaching it and A330 is neither. Coffin corner is not where Vls meets Mmo!
Originally Posted by Ross Detwiller, as quoted by Brian Abraham
The challenges the crew of Air France 447 must have been facing on the night of June 1, 2009, over the South Atlantic are known. Sensory systems appear to have iced up, negating their input. From what I’ve read, the airplane was held in a high angle of attack (AOA) position due to back stick pressure being exerted. With a frozen pitot static system, indicated altitude does not change and indicated airspeed increases with altitude. So they may have initially thought they were going fast and maintaining altitude. If true, that might explain why they continued raising the nose.
It is bloomingly clear that only pitots were frozen and measured altitude was correct all the time. Why-oh-why didn't he read and understand the report? His arguments are totally invalid.
Originally Posted by Ross Detwiller, as quoted by Brian Abraham
Did they remain in "controlled” flight all the to the water because the FBW wouldn’t let the airplane exceed the stall AOA?
No. Aeroplane was in alternate law. No protections. This was known two years ago as the message concerning FBW degradation was sent via ACARS.
Originally Posted by Ross Detwiller, as quoted by Brian Abraham
Did FBW add to the confusion by making inputs of its own?
No. Report 3 is pretty clear on that. It just followed pilots' demand, as programmed to do under the circumstances.
Originally Posted by Ross Detwiller, as quoted by Brian Abraham
I’m not saying that’s what happened because I don’t know and no one else has pointed to that fact
Very well, because that's not what happened and BEA did point that but then you have to understand what was written. Not an easy task for prejudiced, ignorant or both.
Originally Posted by RenegadeMan
but if the side stick of an Airbus behaves (sometimes, always or only occasionally such as perhaps when the aircraft is fully stalled) in a manner not dissimilar or even a little bit like the old video game I’ve mentioned above (i.e. the pilot makes an input such as ‘stick fully back’ and a substantial forward stick counteracting input is required to negate the state that the first input leaves the aircraft in)
It does not. Not in any control law. Rest of your post is based on this assupmption and is therefore not true.