CONFiture
Thank you for responding....
Originally Posted by Lyman
"I cannot prove it but I do not think the THS made the STALL severe ..."
You say...
"That was the BEA job to analyse the operation and the influence of the THS ... but a flight control behavior does not apparently deserve attention in the AF447 case. Of course I'd like to discuss further, but I have to go now."
Part of what I write is meant to publish in purposeful ignorance of the report, it is not closely re-examined, by me in part, It is protest.
I have stated my opinion re: the Final report. In this matter, it is partial, brief, incomplete, and unsatisfactory.
These bureaus are deserving of respect partially in relationship to their product.
I do respect them, but here they have failed, and not in the least due only their lack of inquiry into the Autotrim issue. Well and good they ignore post Stall, I do so myself, and am on record as saying the Stall and after is interesting, but what caused it is the important thing; the THS articulated upwards to and through the exit of envelope.
I don't quibble with the importance of Stall, but any Stall is severe, I think it more important to emphasize how and why the Stall was unusual, and gentle, unnoticed.....initially.
Dozy... What do you think of the BEA language "The THS began a Nose Up movement"? Do you think that is misleading, technically?
Also, they say "And remained in that position to the end of the flight". Why would the THS do that? Doesn't it follow the elevators command? Towards the end, the PITCH reached 10 degrees up, the Captain said that, it was the last of the CVR. Why would the THS remain planted in 13.2 degrees A/C NOSE UP, when the elevators were set to ND, and for a decent length of time, enough to reduce the ROD by 50 per cent?
Last edited by Lyman; 3rd August 2012 at 22:42.