PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF 447 Thread No. 7
View Single Post
Old 11th Nov 2011, 16:27
  #97 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 782

Let me use some more bandwith then.

Great. So you recognize that aeroplane was stalled yet keep on drumming on roll behaviour.
Read my post. I did not do that.

For Finnegan's sake, can you picture A330 flying at 40 AoA with about 100 KTAS? Ugly, eh? Spoilers are blanketed by wing, rudder is blanketed by fuselage and ailerons don't have much say - going up they're in wings wake, going down makes a bit of difference but very low forward speed makes them not particularly efficient.
Im fully aware how a basic aircraft works or better not works in a stalled condition, they are all similar. ANd i needed no sim time in a A320 like DW to know what ailerons do in a stalled condition.

What the heck does sidestick have to do with behaviour of aeroplane that is at extreme AoA, beats me.
Nothing at all. Could you quote me where i made such an mistake?

Oh yes - there's a theory that with yoke somehow CM1 would recognize that CM2's control inputs do not have much effect on aeroplane so he would recognize that the aeroplane is stalled and that first and foremost is AoA reduction.
Is that your theory? Amazing. I only used it as an example to answer OCs statement, quote below.

2 PNF knew the PF was making inputs - Did they know which inputs he was making ?

Answer Old Carthusian
Yes by looking at the instruments. An input produces a certain pattern on your instruments and you can understand what your aircraft is doing.

Retired F4
Would you explain yourself in relation to the timeframe starting from 02:12:45?
Not more and not less. By the way, i still wait on the answer to my question, how the PF or the captain could have seen on the instruments, that despite the continuous right bank PF had full left SS.

Or is this answer no longer relevant as it does not fit in the "everything is right, nothing needs to be changed" scheme?

Well, I'm not buying it. He was listening stall warning for 54 seconds and made not a comment about it, let alone done something.
The simple answer is he should have failed his medical previously due to a hearing problem, or he wanted to kill himself, or....
what is your answer?

So far, I have found two fuel sources that keep this Hamsterwheel turning

1. People having no grasp of aerodynamics, instrument flying or aeroplane system making elaborate analysis of some technical detail. Not able to take subtle hints their theories are spectacularly flawed, they resort to personal attacks when told so in no uncertain terms.

2. People that have some idea how flying works, take out a detail out of whole picture then trying to reconstruct the whole scene just on that little detail. That their picture bears not much resemblance to original seems not to bother them much.
Now where do i fit in?

I like the term KISS, but not in the cause of accidents. I like to turn every stone and look under it, and most of the people you acuse to turn the hamster wheel do the same. Its collecting bit for bit, some turn out to be one way streets, some need further consideration.

I take out a detail and discuss it, but the reconstruction will need lots of those details to get the picture complete. To cry out loud when one of those details is discussed that this is against A or that the whole accident is hung on one single nail is tiring.

I for myself leave it anyway to BEA and Airbus and whatever agency is responsible to make the final saying. But that does not keep me from telling my oppinion on certain aspects of this accident.

But if you do not like this "hamster wheel" then it would be very simple to just stop reading it.

Last edited by RetiredF4; 11th Nov 2011 at 17:00.
RetiredF4 is offline