Originally Posted by
gums
Our "autotrim" was referenced to the gee we had trimmed for. So If I pulled hard and relaxed, then the thing tried to get back to the "trim" setting I had. thought we went over this before.
Fair enough, but the system you're describing suits a fighter, not an airliner. I hate to repeat myself, but the very fact that in the F-16 the human pilots had the option of ejecting
in extremis makes the design considerations of the system as a whole very different.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
1. There are mistakes and failures far in excess of "what we know". Just a stabin the dark.
The investigation seems to be pretty thorough so far and has in part led to the first collaboration between Boeing and Airbus of its type regarding response to stall.
2. No desire to absolve the pilots. I am asking questions in areas that have been foreclosed by a rush to conclude.
Not to seem rude, but you've enthusiastically backed every theory from vertical stab separation to jammed stabilisers to inappropriate FD commands to try to point the finger at the aircraft.
3. Questions I ask are studiedly biased at times to elicit a different look, or pov.
I've got no problem at all with that, but the outright fiction (e.g "no UAS procedure existed") goes way beyond that, to the point that it can sometimes appear as deliberate attenpts to misinform.
Much of my passion here has to do with how absolutely crazy it is that this happened.
Again, fair enough - but you only seem interested in pursuing a single line of inquiry.
4. I have a place in my heart for "patsies". The "fall guy", the pilot, iow.
There are no "patsies" in this case (and much as it may drive CONF to distraction, neither were there any at Habsheim). The aircraft was mishandled - the evidence to back that assertion up is overwhelming.
I am relatively certain that there is no drive to "protect" Airbus within the French aviation safety community. I'm equally certain that there never was. Like all other manufacturers, I have no doubt that their legal department is poised to argue the toss if necessary, but thus far there's been no evidence to suggest that there is. The BEA gains nothing from it - so why does this suspicion remain?
The driving force morphed from an innocent joy in having breakfast in Paris, and dinner in San Francisco into a numbers game.
I'm hoping you mean Rio De Janeiro or Sao Paulo - otherwise we're talking about a completely different flight.
No-one (not even the DGAC) is suggesting that the crew were "derelict" - merely that the evidence suggests that they mishandled the emergency. There's a big difference.