Originally Posted by
BOAC
- I have missed that fact - can you elaborate a little please? Does it have the necessary option to deliberately over-ride as I proposed months ago following PGF?
On the A320 the autotrim stops (at about 6 degrees nose up if I recall correctly), and if you need more trim than that it must be wound on manually with the wheel - so the wheel in effect becomes the override mechanism.
I understood from the report that they were in fact able to maintain a high nose attitude in pitch with side-stick/THS and/or lower the nose occasionally with side stick? Is that not 'control', even if 'up' was the wrong 'control'? Am I wrong?
Perhaps I should have been clearer - while a degree of control was possible throughout the sequence, the fact that the nose dropped (due to stall) when the command given was nose-up - i.e. for that short period not responding to the controls - meant that the aircraft behaviour was consistent with stall.
Originally Posted by
RetiredF4
So you agree now, that the NU trim should have been designed to stop like it does in the A 320. That is a big advance in this discussion.
I neither agree nor disagree - I don't have the evidence to support a case for one design being better or worse than the other.
You have evidence for your assumption concerning the cause of this change in design?
Afaik there might be lot of other reasons, why do you suggest it was caused by pilot input?
I didn't suggest that was the cause (as you point out, I don't have the data) - I said it would be ironic (in the tragic sense) if the design change was a response to criticism based on perceived lack of authority.
Think of it as a bit of whimsical conjecture, not a serious claim.