Originally Posted by Retired F4
Some thrust vector is pointed downward and adding to lift factor instead of longitudonal acceleration.
Since it is: sine (aeroplane pitch + thrustline pitch) x thrust / mass, it is minor. It is also impossible to detect on Nz graph. All IRS accelerometers are strapped to aeroplane and therefore airframe referenced, not ground referenced.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
So you are saying, that adding power had no noticable effect, reduction had a big one?
Yes! I'll qualify that in a second.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
The G-load change however started already at 02:11:52 from 0.7 g to 1 g at 02:12:00 to 1.1 g at 02:12:10. The pitchdown had resulted in an decrease of AOA, thus wing and THS and elevators got more effective again.
Yes, but that pitch down was concurrent with thrust reduction! Next two were concurrent with elevators merely moving away from full nose-up! This aeroplane wanted to fly! Combined effort of engines, THS and elevator were needed to keep her stalled - as her attempts to pitch down into flying envelope have attested.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
The SS graph does not indicate, what the reason for the overall pulling was.
Agreed. They don't show why, just what.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
For that we have to look deeper and take the reaction of the airframe into account.
Penetrating as deep as it was possible with my limited means, I could find no fault in BEA's statement that aeroplane performed as designed & certified. Technical path has been well explored and not many pieces of puzzle found there.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
It is obvious, that any pilot flying with passengers unstrapped in the back tries to avoid g loads less then 1g.
Eeerm... not quite. It's impossible to avoid loads below 1G when leveling off or going into descent. I try to be as smooth as my George and he's limited to 0.7G
Originally Posted by Retired F4
look up the area of loadfactor protection in ALT2, what inputs (speed, aoa, or whatever) are being used, at what values this protections kick in and how it changes with different speeds, and how this protection would work out.
It uses no air data whatsoever. It's what it says on the box: load factor protection and you just need vertical accelerometer for it to work. Airframe referenced vertical, that is.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
We have to open up our mind to grasp the unpossible and the unthinkable and have to put aside for a moment the obvious.
Moderation is keyword. No use in opening mind so wide that the brains fall out.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
We have to think about every aspect of possibilities regardless who invented and designed it.
...and discard impossible, implausible, improbable and just plane goofy ones.
What is so unbelievable about the picture of pilot pulling and pulling until the earth catches up with his stalled aeroplane and smites him? We have been losing aeroplanes to it for last century or so - trainers, transports, combat ones. Wolfgang Langewiesche has described the phenomenon accurately back in 1944. Heck, even your long time ago predecessor, Adolf Galland, managed to write off a training glider in such a manner. He survived spinning in because his glider had low wing loading and he kept the stick planted fully back until the impact, so he hit in fully blown spin, rather than in post spin recovery dive. Lady luck also lent her hand. Lucky for him, not so for those who would later stay for a split second too long in the reticle of his Me109.
First, I'm interested in why does it happen at all. When we solve that, then it's the question how did it manage to rise its ugly head in AF447's cockpit.