Originally Posted by RetiredF4
Forgive me my ignorance, it was yourself, who put the discussion back to this simple term.
Because it is simple: CM2 pulled the aeroplane into stall and kept her there. That's why it fell.
Originally Posted by Lyman
alternate Law? for UAS? Why?
Because alternate laws are must-have fail-safe, mitigating the risk of untimely activation of overspeed and alpha protections! Computers are unintelligent and get more easily confused than humans, that's why they refrained from intervention when the aeroplane was stalled. Wet dream of many a PPRuNer asking for more direct control in Airbus turned out to be a hellish nightmare.
Originally Posted by LoneWolf 50
Scan and knowing what procedures to apply are better improved by repetition, eh?
Yes, but instrument scan, understanding the aeroplane's position & behaviour and manual dexterity in manipulating the controls are not inseparably connected. True, you have to be very good to in all of them, all of the time to be a good enough instrument pilot but there's no difference between instrument scan when flying manually or when AP is on (except you can get away with more easily with lazy or inexistent scan when George is in charge) and procedures can be reviewed in one's head while serenely cruising, or standbying at home or whatever. As any technical discipline, flying can only be mastered in crawl-walk-run sequence. People struggling with basic aerodynamics will have no idea what is behind the memory items, will learn them by rote just to pass the checkride and stand good chance of misremembering or misapplying them at 4:00 AM, no matter how many time they repeat the mantra.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Clandestino and Dozy are banking heavily on two pilots completely losing the ship to Stall, with nary a whimper. I don't believe it.
Being realist, I believe whether you, I, anyone else and his dog believe or not, it will not have a slightest effect on what has already happened. If anyone in cockpit recognized a stall warning for what it was and acted accordingly, we wouldn't be having this thread. Eighth.
Originally Posted by Lyman
He hadn't heard the Stall warn yet, so we can eliminate a rote response to approach to Stall, etc.....etc....
Rote response to stall warning would have saved him and everyone on board.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Meanwhile, the aircraft has been in a stable cruise without any obstacle clearance problems and has the potential to keep doing so, so why would any sane pilot want to disrupt that process just because some of the instruments are confused?
Shock, horror, surprise, followed by panic and disorientation.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Rote application of an emergency procedure without understanding the appropriate circumstances has downed more than one aircraft.
Yes. Rote application of wrong procedure did. Rote application of right procedure didn't, even if its application was by sheer chance.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
It remains to be seen whether AF447 is indeed the canary in the coal mine for more LOC accidents of this type.
No. Few examples of canary in coal mine were Pinnacle, Armavia, Gulf Air, Colgan, Birgenair, Aeroflot Nord, Alitalia 46 at mt Crezzo... it's just we disregarded them with a bit of applied jingoism: those killed were Russian/drunk/Arab/regional jet jockeys/Italian/turboprop drivers/ex-military/etc. Now when it happened to western built and operated widebody, amount of irrelevant and plain wrong theories put forward on PPRuNE to compensate for our inability to face the facts is amazing thing to behold.
Originally Posted by PJ2
The primary decision-point is based upon whether the safety of the flight was impacted. That is an entirely subjective matter, as is evidenced by the differences in opinions offered on the matter by those who do this work.
It's a joke, right? Some slight subjectiveness can never be totally eliminated but pilots whose estimations stray too far from objective are bound to get hurt.
Originally Posted by PJ2
The "5deg pitch above FL100" is misleading and wrong
It is not wrong and it is not obligatory.
Originally Posted by PJ2
A 5° pitch attitude isn't going to stall the airplane any time soon.
It will
never stall an aeroplane as long as there is sufficient power available. With 5° pitch maintained, aeroplane climbs, power drops, AoA goes up until level-off at 5° alpha is achieved. Any aeroplane.
Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
Is that intended as a 'slap on the wrist' or do they mean 'well done'?
Accident reports indulge in neither. It is a statement claiming following the memory items is definitively not necessary for successfully dealing with UAS.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
No other tool that fully visible control columns can better enhance crew coordination - It is all about naturally sharing first hand information - A crew needs sharing, not hiding.
>sigh< Let me try it this way: was AF447 really the only case of UAS in cruise on A330/340 fleet so we should base all our judgments about Airbus FBW cockpit design solely on it or do we perchance have some other incidents to check how other crews behaved and see whether the UAS on the Bus is really bound to be lethal by virtue of sidestick design?
Originally Posted by Lyman
The PF does not know where neutral is
To find where the neutral is, let go of stick. Were springs broken? Extremely probably not; no mention of it on CVR and CM2 successfully reduced pitch from 12° nose up to 6° before stall warning went off second time and inane pull was repeated. So no traces loss of control in pitch. Aeroplane did as commanded.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Every reason for the PF to initially pull.
That's very selective reasoning. Once aeroplane was back at FL350 indicated, there was no reason to pull anymore, yet he pulled and pulled and pulled, reaching an apogee of FL379, 2900 ft above cleared level. If there was a reason to keep pulling, it was not on altimeter anymore.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
In FL350 a 0° pitch can be considered a nose down attitude, as the aircraft won´t maintain level flight anymore.
In real life there are: turbulence, updrafts and downdrafts. 0° pitch can be perfectly acceptable transient cruise pitch.