@ Lyman,
Lyman Quote: Howdy. Can you clarify? Are you saying that the actual STALL was left off because the pilots hadn't acknowledged it? Seems like odd criteria to drive an investigation. A major disappointment has been the lack of attention given to this area by the BEA. We are left to wonder about this.
In essence, that is what I am saying. It isn't odd at all. We know and the BEA knows why they stalled, the fact the crew never recognized they were in a stall and never attempted to remove themselves from the stall. Therefore the BEA is not obligated to speculate as to whether recovery from the stall could be achieved or not. In fact, by crew non-recognition, recovery from the stall was not possible as was demonstrated. The reason for not investigating is no data exists for
what parameters were entered into in this accident. However the BEA did address this in several sections of their final report as
RetiredF4 pointed out. In fact, the BEA addressed this in section 4.3.6 (english version) titled
Improving Flight Simulators and Exercises and in their recommendation to EASA FRAN-2012-045. We will see how the EASA responds to this in part or full.
The point is, had the AF447 crew recognized and attempted to recover from the stall they were in, but failed, then the BEA may have been obligated to examine if the aircraft was recoverable or not and provided an answer the question. If this were the case, SIM experiments and characterization of the event at the stall point would have to be developed for the SIM and testing accomplished. But I believe the outcome and conclusion would have been hedged absent actual aircraft testing.
Lyman Quote: Thus far, we are missing the statement: "throughout the recorded conversations and CAM, there was no hint nor evidence that the Stall Warning was acknowledged in any way." Is there? Because when redacting or witholding, some purpose and conclusion needs to be stated, lest the public be left wondering.
From the BEA Final Report, SYNOPSIS, Page 17:
-
- The crew not identifying the approach to stall, the lack of immediate on its part and exit from the flight envelope,
- The crew's failure to dianose of the stall situation and, consequently, the lack of any action that would have made recovery possible.
Also,
Page 198 - CONCLUSION - 3.1 - Findings
- Neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning or to buffet.
- Neither pilots formally identified the stall situation.
Now don't you think if there were anything in the contrary to the above statements in the CVR, it would have to be stated by the BEA? Hint: Review the worldwide participants the BEA drew into the investigation....