HazelNuts39
I take your point re: sensitivity. Such vulnerability to errors of small magnitude is out of context (sic) for any graph of windspeed. One is tempted to say that the nomenclature is reversed, and that the airmass is the line "Aircraft". However, to claim the airmass line as the a/c would involve a belief that the v/s of this airframe is ridiculously responsive to airmass, let alone controls.
So the graph is essentially useless, imo. A response of airframe of even 500fpm to an updraft of 2500fpm is to stretch, especially when considering the a/c is in sensitive airspace, and in autoflight. Also consider the airframe, per graph, is responding far too quickly to light forces, and reversing out of all sense of Physics.
Do you take my point? The airframe is climbing at a rate completely inconsistent with the data. No updraft of 2500fpm will cause this aircraft to leave its cruise level with a functional (sic) autopilot latched. Nor will it cause said autopilot to command 4.5 degrees nose down (-1 degree PITCH) from cruise (+3.5 degrees) at Mach .80.
All this well before disconnect, no PF touching anything.
mm43
I am not saying there was no ICE. I am proposing that the loss of autopilot and the degrade to AL was caused by loss of AS, actual, as a result of Updraft. Once in the climb, in warm wet air, the airframe, including Pitot Probes and Statics, may well have ICED. I believe that it was likely, even. I also think that it was not consequential, since Airspeeds returned quickly. At that point, however, the Airspeed was remarkably lower, due Updraft, AoA, and climb gobbling up energy.