Mach
NORMAL LAW protections end up creating what 447 experienced. In NORMAL, the wing will not STALL, even with full back stick, held. It "merely" increases sink rate. It is a technical "NON STALL", only, for with increased sink, the result is what happened to 447. So Bus pilots are taught that the a/c will not stall, even with continued back stick. (In the Normal Law).
Is it just a trick of nomenclature? Do they believe that even with the STALLWARN, they are not STALLED?
For whatever reason, if the pilots are granted even minimal skill, they did not consider they were STALLED, in evidence in CVR. They knew they were descending, but could they have possibly believed they remained in NORMAL LAW? At the very last, they PITCHED down. They then increased PITCH before impact. On the face of it, it appears at least that they may have considered the STALL was not real?
Per your unloading description, they were 'flying', at one g, the wing is not "STALLED"? I have never experienced a one g STALL, developed, though I know you have. Had they? "How can we be STALLED, the NOSE has not dropped down?" ( No "0" g )
I suppose it is an aerodynamic exercise, help?
Last edited by Lyman; 23rd Mar 2012 at 18:33.