Doze...
This.... In short, in the unlikely event there's a failure of the system and a concurrent entry into stall warning territory, then the control law will degrade, but a value that triggers stall warning by itself will not trigger law degradation as long as the system checks out as operating normally.
At what point then do you consider the a/c STALLED? It changes LAW to accommodate the STALL? How tight does Mr.Pilot have to play it? Should he wait, so that Mr airbus can still claim, "Won't STALL...." In Normal Law
Here....
The PNF calling out "Alternate Law" - which means ECAM was working
The Captain indicating all three ADIs (horizon) - which means they were working
Multiple altitude call-outs during the descent - which means the altimeters were working
No, he may have called Alternate Law because he knew without speeds, Normal goes away
Probably, but you still have to admit, they may have been working, and wrong....
Multiple altitude callouts. from Altimeter? Again, working and congruent, but....
And In a more serious setting than an internet forum, a statement like that would be borderline slanderous. Do you have any evidence for this supposition? Or is it more likely that they *did* analyze the technical aspects and found that no technical failure matched the evidence?
The St Elmo's fire is not analyzed, the PNF statement is given as "Proof"
The additional heat in the cockpit is not enlarged,
The Smell is allowed to be proven by PNF again, a known authority on Nasal powers...
"What's that". Again the proof is a good guess...
An analysis of prior events re: no record of RHS....
BEA is relying on PPRUNE to vett their analysis. I think their ploy was a good one...
One gigantic leap of faith in an audience that will accept wool as an eye covering...
Last edited by Lyman; 31st Jul 2012 at 00:04.