Originally Posted by Lyman
This is where I was going when I posited she would have Stalled sooner, at higher speed, without the influence of the 'locked in UP'position THS.
...once again displaying a) dashing misunderstanding of aerodynamics - weight and C.G. affect the 1g stall speed significantly, trim setting extremely negligibly b) stupendous inability to read and understand the report, especially page 179 and the diagrams BEA thoughtfully provided - at the apex of the climb, trim was at about 5° up, it moved to full up after the aeroplane was well and truly stalled.
Originally Posted by Lyman
A ballistic STALL is gentle, almost graceful,
AF447 was subject to aerodynamic stall. Ballistic stall, whatever it might be, is best discussed on artillery forums.
Originally Posted by Lyman
The AoA was extreme, and this causes the functional Cg to locate aft,
How do you propose CG shift happens with moving AoA? Graviton flux? Perish the thought...
Originally Posted by Lyman
further reducing the normal signals of STALL as well as make recovery more problematic. Think "Tail Slide", or "Hammerhead".
BS. You keep on disregarding the report. Stall signs were clearly present. Recovery, even from really botched-up hammerheads is very simple for aerobatic aeroplanes with low wing loading. A330 is not aerobatic and her wing is really heavy loaded. Two good reasons not to try high alpha maneuvers in her.
Quousque tandem abutere, Lyman, patientia nostra?
Originally Posted by jcjeant
The judicial court is not there for improve safety
Exactly. DFDR and CVR are. This is where any meaningful and reasonable discussion regarding their use in judicial process ends.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
the judge (s) and lawyers need to have all evidences and expertise at hand
Such an omnipotence is awarded only to Judge Dredd. Recorders are not installed for judicial use. Tough, if you feel it has to be otherwise or have vested interest in helping your client and sc**wing everyone else. Welcome to the real world.
Originally Posted by BOAC
no - you are probably stalled. What if when they move the stick forwards and the nose goes down - were they still out of control?
There are some aeroplanes that retain some controllability after exiting envelope left, eg. X-31, Zivko Edge, F-22 and similar. What makes them controllable while stalled (although far less controllable than when inside the envelope) also makes them extremely impractical as touring or passenger transport machines. These tend to have no roll and very limited pitch and yaw controls when stalled. Only method that leads to regaining the positive flightpath control is reducing the alpha - colloquially known as "unstalling". IMHO it takes quite a stretch of imagination to apply designation "under control" to stalled airliner.
Originally Posted by BOAC
"A ballistic STALL is gentle, almost graceful," is exactly correct
Two of you are referring to low G stall, which is gentle due to low speed! AF447 a) never achieved that b) did suffer from pretty heavy pre-stall buffet. I see no point in further developing this line of discussion, except some entertainment.
Originally Posted by BOAC
A totally different dynamic and one very few airline pilots will have experienced.
How do you propose to train it in airliners?
If you want to train it in aerobats, what's the use of practicing the maneuver that will be far more dangerous in far, far heavier and far less maneuverable aeroplane?
I have never practiced full stall recovery in my current type and don't ever intend to. There is no reasonable aviation authority anywhere in the world that will even attempt to make me do it.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
How do your instructors insert a stall scenario without you realising?
Oh, they did - on a specific type in conditions that were completely inapplicable to any A330 anywhere, anytime. It was ATR and you don't get points for guessing what sim button they pressed to induce sudden unannounced departure.
Anyway, we are discussing AF447 here. That's where pilots were not startled by sudden unexpected stall warning but rather loss of reliable airspeed information made one of them pull until stalled and disregard the stall warning. Anyway, please find me an incident or accident where the first sign of trouble was stall warning (except 1011 at JFK where untimely warning was caused by faulty AoA probe).
Originally Posted by Safetypee
The crew had not detected the UAS situation, but with ADC dropout/changeover the (unwarranted?) stall warning was taken as real.
Have a look at CVR transcript from 2:10:14.0 onwards and let's scrap the rest of the post. Both pilots commented that speed display was faulty. Neither called out "Disregard stall warning"
Originally Posted by Safetypee
biased understanding of the control system
Look no further than PPRuNe.
Originally Posted by Safetypee
It also questions if stall recovery in normal law was ever taught this way
Stall...recovery...in...normal...law...was...never...trained .