Originally Posted by
Flyinheavy
I found it remarkably though that BEA cared to mention it as a POSSIBLE reason for the otherwise very strange maintaining the SS in nose up.
It's not that remarkable really - as I said, because there is no way to be definitively certain about why the PF handled the aircraft the way he did, the BEA are therefore compelled to examine all potential reasons.
Originally Posted by
Lyman
Recheck your spoiler response....What the pilot considered, created their collective reality. That you do not understand this is what keeps us miles apart.
The point is that they were supposed to act as a crew, and what we instead see is a significant difference in perception between the two FOs. From the start of the sequence, the PF seems completely out of his depth and it looks very much like he was throwing possible conclusions out there -almost at random - to see if anything would stick. The PNF on the other hand seems to be trying to work from the evidence in front of him, and gets increasingly frustrated with his colleague.
What the CVR has in the way of usefulness is lost on you when you use it only to qualify a mechanical log... It is the human version of the DFDR.
You're levelling assertions at me that don't fit my actions. If you recall, I was one of the first to point out the PNF's growing sense of uncertainty and irritation with the PF - I've used the CVR transcript for far more than qualification of the DFDR!
Position of spoilers can be correctly displayed without the spoiler being attached to the actuator.
I'm not so sure of that. I'm pretty sure that a "position" trace requires confirmation from the systems that the position was actually achieved.
Dozy. you continue to misuse the report. Again, what the PF was thinking and doing, you reject because it does not fit what happened.
That is absurd, when you consider that what he thought and did created what happened, otherwise known as 'what happened'....
I'm not "rejecting" anything, and I'm certainly not "misusing" the report. The evidence suggests a sequence of incorrect diagnoses by the PF, and that's all there is to it.
Without wanting to sound harsh, you've attempted to advance theory after theory for over a year, and every time the evidence has disproved those theories (which have included vertical stabiliser separation, THS jackscrew failure and structural failure of the spoilers among others), you come back with another one.
Now it seems you're trying to argue that the PF's assertions were actually correct and it is the data gathered that is somehow wrong. What makes this incredibly unlikely as far as I'm concerned is that on the CVR, you can hear the PNF in the opposite seat repeatedly making assertions and suggestions which *do* fit the data and which in all likelihood would probably have helped. If the PNF had even the slightest belief that the PF had a point, then you'd have heard co-operation between them. Instead, we hear the PNF openly wonder where the Captain is, while at the same time trying to get the PF to snap out of it and approach the problem logically.