Originally Posted by
jcjeant
Incidence more of 30°
Not sure what you're getting at
Unusual position (law)
Abnormal Attitude Law was never triggered
No evidence to suggest that because no input was ever made that would have moved it.
In first place I dunno why a BEA report (if I take in account your criteria) as the BEA already tell in a interim report that the plane acted as per design ..
So nothing who din't work as it was supposed to ...
Seem's the BEA report is only pointing and investigating the pilots actions (hence the human factor group created especially for)
paradoxically.. many recommendations concern the plane .....
The BEA's remit concerns the events of the accident (technical, human and procedural). They may have confirmed that the aircraft behaved as per spec by the time of IR#3, but the Human Factors team required a lot longer to attempt to draw positive conclusions about the crew's behaviour.
The BEA are "pointing" at nothing (nor have they ever done so) - they have simply produced a report which states that based on the information they have, this was the likely sequence of events. Where conclusive evidence exists, they have outlined it - and where evidence is inconclusive, they have explored the possible reasons for it.
One of the unfortunate side-effects of the Continental approach to accident investigation is that the BEA - who are responsible for a purely factual approach to the investigation - are frequently misattributed to be behind the later legal and criminal findings.
Originally Posted by
HazelNuts39
If I may add to DW's reply: It should not be assumed that the simulation was done in a training simulator. More likely it was done in an engineering simulator, or perhaps just in a computer.
My guess would be that the systems behaviour testing was performed at a Level D sim in Toulouse, and the aerodynamic behaviour was simulated on a "big iron" setup normally used for design work.