Originally Posted by
CONF iture
QF72 A330
Just short memory ... or desire to look the other way ?
BTW, still no fix, just the same OEB to try to beat the dysfunction ...
I am afraid that Australian ATSB has shown utter disregard for your ideas that fix is inadequate and in
its final report of upset to A330 near Learmonth has found actions by Airbus quite acceptable.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
So for you .. the judges have vested interests and so they will misusing the recorded data ?
That's new for me .. I suppose you have references ..
Do you really think wording of Annex 13, 5.12 was pulled out of thin air?
The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations.
If it is just my opinion that judicial actions can have adverse effect on aviation safety efforts, how come ICAO listens to me? Perchance it's not just my opinion, eh?
Originally Posted by Retired F4
Are you in disagreement here with BEA?
Yes. Who said the BEA's word is sacrosanct? That other crews did react to stall warning, if not in completely perfect manner, at least in the one that kept them flying makes it hard to argue that
Originally Posted by BEA
the conditions in which airline pilots are trained and exposed to stalls during their professional training and the process of recurrent training does not generate the expected behaviour in any acceptable reliable way.
...if we accept it to be general appraisal and not directed at one specific crew.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
Well, BEA is adressing this matter again, and you disagree here again?
No, I'm not saying they got it wrong, just that it's largely irrelevant. Of what use is any protection if the crew is able to control the aeroplane properly? Alpha prot is used consciously only when terrain is a factor.
AFAIK, accident started to unravel at FL350 over the ocean.
Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
Maybe there is merit in developing a system that reliably detects a stall and announces that condition unequivocally to the crew.
Is this serious proposal? WTH is wrong with what we have, except it doesn't work at really extreme angles.
Originally Posted by safetypee
At best we only have a small snapshot of what occurred in the flightdeck, and can only speculate on the crew’s mental activity.
Small snapshot? We have DFDR readouts and CVR transcript that clearly show crews have no clue what is going on and if anything is marginally consistent with CM2 inputs it is normal law GPWS escape. however, it was performed over the ocean, at FL350, when protections were lost. Have a look at page 96 of French report (English is botched here) to see what would have happened if both pilots went catatonic - it's the magenta line.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Here is BEA definition of the depart. Do you see any reference to STALL?
Another dazzling display of failing to understand the basic aerodynamics. Departing the envelope through lift limit is called stall. Report is full of reference to stall.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Neither was there Stall Buffet sufficient to announce STALL onset.
It was far more then sufficient. Test pilots say so. Page 93 refers.
Originally Posted by Lyman
There was no drastic increases in drag, in fact drag was decreasing, due to the lessening of velocity.
What then did cause the aeroplane to decelerate with maximum thrust, if there was no drag? Things we discuss seriously on professional pilot's forum are sometimes unbelievable.
Originally Posted by Lyman
There is a profound difference between "loss of..."
And "Unreliable...."
Who cares about the difference. Instrument rated pilots must be able to keep on flying any aeroplane (even Airbus) whether speeds are unreliable or totally lost. That's basic instrument flying.
Originally Posted by Lyman
So yes, the issue was they were lost at STALL,
Main issue is that they induced stall - something no other crew succeeded.
Originally Posted by Lyman
What did the crew do that was unique?
Stalled without realizing it.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
If it would have been a simple stall recovery maneouvre, why did BEA use those cryptic words?
Because there is nothing simple about taking the aeroplane into area which was a) never entered during flight testing b) was not required to be entered by certification requirements c) was never entered by the type during its 11 years in service, let alone getting her out of it. While there are no reliable data about exact aeroplane behaviour during recovery, it is certain very large nose down attitude would have needed to be achieved to get the aeroplane flying again.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
But first things first, the BEA had to evaluate what was the influence of the autotrim in the process.
Well, this time they listened to you:
Originally Posted by BEA
Throughout the flight, the movements of the flight control surfaces were
consistent with the pilot’s inputs.
Originally Posted by BOAC
References appearing to the Airbus 'stall recovery pull-up' manouevre. Is this right?
No. Maintain attitude and add power used to be
low level approach to stall recovery. Maybe it still is.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
According to Clandestino, Alternate Law handling is trained to assume a worst-case scenario (i.e. all protections lost).
Per company training but I can't really imagine any sensible training department teaching pilots how to use reduced protections as they are overridable. There is just one protection that is supposed to be used deliberately... I've already said that
Originally Posted by Lyman
think he was honestly trying to regain a cruise Pitch or thereabouts.
17.9° is not cruise pitch. Full back stick is not hamfistedness.
Originally Posted by Lyman
At what point then do you consider the a/c STALLED?
Past Clmax.
Originally Posted by Lyman
As designed, the autotrim helped to put deeper the aircraft into the stall ...
What a wonderful partial view! It was always active in all other cases and helped maintain control. It would have helped the recovery if nose down was maintained.
Originally Posted by IcePack
I find the Boeings airspeed indications more damped than the AB
If it were true, the word would be "lagging", not "damped".
Originally Posted by IcePack
I would say only moderate but the speed indications would have had you believe the aircraft was out of control.
I find idea that pilot would rely only on speed indication to check whether the aeoplane is out of control pretty frightening (though it might help explain somewhat Birgenair or AF447).
Originally Posted by RR NDB
Why Airbus SAS design delegates to the crew UAS diagnosis?
Same reason Boeing does... computer can't recognize it.
Originally Posted by RR NDB
On UAS early warning: Technically speaking this is VERY EASY.
You keep on saying that without offering practical solution.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Everybody in this Godforsaken business eventually hides behind the law that places final responsibility in the pilots hands.
Tough. Well it's his posterior in the aeroplane so there's good reason to be responsible.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Sidestick neutral, the THS would have rolled the same way.
It would have rolled the same way trying to change flightpath with 2.5G demand and maintaining 1G?!? Well if it were let go after the climb was established it would roll in the same direction but not with the same speed.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
It flies just as well under Alternate Law - and unlike the Cessna, A310 or Boeing, manual trim is more difficult because - as has been said - there is no direct or artificial feedback.
1. You probably meant direct law, ALT has autotrim
2. It is BS perpetuated by some. It is very easy to trim Airbus in direct law using wheel. Fact that you move stick and not just release the pressure as you trim did cause some concern to me when I read the manual. It is absolutely easy to do, folks who keep spouting it's a problem have never tried it.
Originally Posted by TTex600
The Airbus can NOT be flown without the computers.
It flies very nicely without any computer intervetion, with direct stick-to-control-displacement of direct law.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Subsequently the computers give the airplane (which they can no longer fly) to the human. Leaving the human to deal with it.
Per design. Big deal.
Originally Posted by TTex600
The pilots were left without the vaunted computer protections while you and others lay in your warm beds dreaming about how the system really does allow pilot full control.
So were the others. What is the use of protection, anyway? Just watch CONF iture rising to bait.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
Neither can the B777,
She can. Why are we bringing opinions that are blatantly wrong into discussion? We are not flying passengers in bloomingly unstable Su-27!