Originally Posted by Case One
What?
One can pass ATPL theory exams by learning the answers from the question databank by rote. Some even try. Some succeed.
Originally Posted by Case One
Well, they turned through 180 degrees on the way down, I wonder if they really were IMC the entire time.
They turned while stalled with alpha exceeding 30° all the time! CM2 fought the right bank with full left stick, to no avail. He even didn't comment about inability to control the roll.
Originally Posted by Case One
Don't be silly, how about downgrading to another mode such as attitude hold?
It downgrades to modes considered basic: as Airbus flight director has far less modes than e.g Dash-8's, it can't revert to attitude hold but to heading select and V/S. It's pilot's responsibility to recognize F/D are no longer able to guide the aeroplane reliably and shut them manually down. If nothing else, checklist says so.
Originally Posted by Case One
I don't think you can read that as the FCS would demand minus 1g
FCS demands nothing! It tries to comply with demand coming from autopilot or sidesticks! Full forward stick gives you low g limit of -1 in manual flight, clean.
Originally Posted by Case One
However Airbus manuals are cr@p, so I can't be certain - can you?
Pretty lame excuse for ignorance. It might have helped my Airbus groundschool CBT was made in Germany but it was telling the same story manuals did.
Originally Posted by Case One
When someone is panicing I think you can have it both ways, they are not thinking logically, and this design feature does not help
So it was panic and not design, after all?
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
Because they thought it was
Any signs of rethinking from the powers that be? Could be that FAA won't rethink Airbus certification just because hundreds of posters on anonymous forum want it to?
Originally Posted by noske
Michel Asseline, possibly slightly misquoted, but I'm not going to look up what exactly his claim was.
It was statement made in post-crash shell-shocked state. Investigation found out engines worked as expected, capt Asseline concurred and retracted it. Of course, noticing this would damage the strong belief of anti-FADEC brigade so they keep trusting the old newspapers instead of competent technical inquiry.
Originally Posted by noske
This must refer to the Bangalore crash.
Bangalore crash was caused by selecting the altitude below the airport elevation into FCU and making OP DES towards it. Unsurprisingly, descent was broken by hitting the golf course short of threshold. Selecting the altitude below planned landing elevation is a very big no-no on any aeroplane equipped with altitude selector.
Originally Posted by Carjockey
Pitot tubes are exposed to outside elements
Well, they measure air pressure, it is natural they have to be exposed to... air.
Originally Posted by Carjockey
Do you mean to tell me that when flying a planeload of passengers at 35k feet, today's pilots are complacent and unprofessional enough to be 'startled' if a problem arises?
If you paid attention to other aviation incidents and accidents instead of making a whole world-encompassing theories based only on AF447 case, you would not need to ask that question.
Originally Posted by qquantum
what sort of sane FCS/SW engineering logic will allow ANU movement of the THS in a stall?
Without Aural/Visual warning to the pilot?
The one which is behind every aeroplane certification since certification business has started:
pilot is the master. If he demands nose up, nose up he will get as long as the aeroplane is structurally and aerodynamically capable of performing the feat.
Fact that THS would go nose down if nose-down input were made doesn't sit well with "evil autotrim" myth, eh?
Originally Posted by qquantum
We've seen that before — A300-600R Nagoya, A320 Perpignan.
For beginning: A300-600R is not FBW, it has conventional control columns so anyone seen same thing at Nagoya, Perpignan and AF447 is likelyy suffering from cognitive bias.
Originally Posted by qquantum
Because this integrator has built up a value well past the actual stabilizer limit, the stabilizer did not come off the ANU stop when the pilot reversed his input – as happened several times – until the integrator wound back down to the limit value. The integrator never unwound over the rest of the flight (fall) to impact.
Bold statement. Couldn't find in the final report. Can you name your sources or would you rather keep them anonymous?
Originally Posted by qquantum
Since you appear to consider this phenomenon to be OK
Phenomenon of airing good-sounding and completely false hypotheses on PPRuNe is just something we have to live with if we want to keep the discussion open.
Originally Posted by carjockey
I am SLF and I am entitled to form my own opinion, regardless of what any 'experts' may say.
You are absolutely entitled to your own opinion, not to your own facts.