Originally Posted by Retired F4
Did i say anything from being necessary to gain altitude or that A330 flies like a fighter or should do so? Stick to my words and do not lay words in my mouth i didn´t write.
No, but you keep on talking about unloading, maneuvering with respect to Gs and all the other neat stuff that works very well on high power, high drag machines with low aspect ratio swept wings that are used to bomb the
out of the opponent or shoot down his aeroplanes. While some of it are applicable on high power loading, cruise efficient and not very maneuverable machines we use to transport passengers from, A to B, training airline pilots in them would be utterly superfluous as there are already proven and taught procedures to deal with just the stuff that was thrown onto AF447 crew. They did nothing resembling them.
Originally Posted by Retured F4
Later on the opposite happened, reduction of power had a noticeable effect on reducing pitch, as you stated yourself in previous posts.
Aeroplane was stalled by then. There are significant differences in flying qualities between stalled and unstalled aeroplane.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
Imho that it was a major assisting part in changing pitch by 11° in connection wit the NU SS. Do the math, look at the loadfactor charts and come back again to comment.
FBW Airbi are flightpath stable in any altn law so the effect of the changing thrust on pitch is automatically canceled and at the computed airspeed at the time stall warning went off the second time, flight controls authority would be pretty sufficient, especially as the difference between TOGA and cruise power at altitude is minimal. Powervise, there is a world of difference between same N1 at cruising level and at sea level - and concomitant pitch moment.
Graph shows right stick to be most of the time in the nose up area, confirming BEAs finding that aeroplane behaved as commanded.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
The SW2 sounded before a NU SS input was made again and the aircraft was still in a climb with 1.100 fpm. Would the PF had made his ND inputs more agressive like the assumed .5 g´s, then it would imho have changed the siuation significantly.
So "run out of speed" shouldn't be misread as: "...and then stalled" but as "...and then got so slow to activate stall warning that made CM2 pull and consequently stall the aeroplane." I apologize for misunderstanding your post.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
PF initiated the climb to "recover" the apparent 400 feet loss due to Mach correction. That was the cause of the initial climb
Your interpretation. Incongruent with busting the level by couple of thousand feet subsequently.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
A side effect may have been that he suffered from Somatogravic illusion with an deceleration of 3 kts per second which may explain why he was seeking confirmation.
I have already posted that successful succumbing to somatogravic illusion requires higher levels of acceleration - such as a TOGA kick. That's what made Air Transat crew succumb to it, not average acceleration. Popping the speedbrakes on the very fast jet might lead to similar Nx values in deceleration sense but I think we have already established that such an equipment was not used on the AF447 route. Now it is possible that mere deceleration of climb can make the pilot succumb to somatogravic illusion and perpetuate the climb into the stall but anyone proving it will open a whole new chapter of aeromedicine.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
If they are not suffering from some Somatogravic illusion with regards to their attitude, why select ALT ATT?
Suddenly realizing that instruments are not infallible and losing all faith in all of them? Any rational thought abandoning them for good? What difference does it make if they succumbed to this or that illusion anyway?
Originally Posted by Retired F4
The PF never had a steady SS
...yet the average was nose up.
Originally Posted by Retired F4
imho we dont know the effect of it, s the SS input is not necessarily immidiately transferred to a elevator deflection (FBW) and a elevator deflection does not immidiately tranfer to a flight path change (delay until the aircraft reacts). Additionally at 02:10:45 there was a thrust reduction present, just 4 seconds prior the SW2 sounded. We didn´t talk about the effects of that one jet.
IBEAHO:
Originally Posted by The Report, page 91
The aircraft’s movements in the longitudinal axis were primarily due to the inputs by the PF, with the exception of small variations due to the aerology (variations in normal acceleration of about 0.2 g);
There is a picture that goes with it. Also one on the page 97 of the French report (fig 64) - very ugly stuff.
Originally Posted by BOAC
It appears they did not really appreciate the attitude they had, so they could well have felt misleading 'acceleration' effects.
Probably we wouldn't be discussing AF447 at all if it were the only thing they didn't appreciate.
Originally Posted by BOAC
I take it you have never experienced 'the leans' or the feeling of pitch induced by rapid acceleration/deceleration without 'normal' visual clues - very powerful illusions and the cause of many accidents..
...in military. Civvies have it mostly as pitching down in go-arounds as the low drag, cruise optimized designs just can't produce enough deceleration for it to be really dangerous.