Originally Posted by Chris Scott
I should have acknowledged that the "trace" I was looking at is in the report that Airbus themselves did in 1995, not the BEA report.
By any chance, would you have a link for that Airbus report ?
Inconveniently, on my PDF copy the print is reminiscent of the blurred, bottom carbon-copy of a document created on a cheap portable typewriter.
It's not your PDF copy, it is how the BEA conveniently (?) published its report ...
Originally Posted by HN39
Attenuated by phugoid damping?
At such level it is not attenuation but plain restriction.
Originally Posted by AZR
We see on that chart that in the end of the flight (~12h45'33"), the AoA reaches and maintains 15°
There is no flight ending around 12h45'33" ... but apparently more confusion to come with the timings ...
I think the last column of values (in the FDR annex) are the decimals for the AoA. If I'm correct, then the last AoA value registerd is 15.4°, not 15°. The aircraft would have been then 2.1° short of AlphaMax, not 2.5
I don't know what that column is, where the same sequence 1234 is reproduced, but it is not for the decimals.
Bottom line, the System had no intention to deliver those extra degrees.
That doesn't sound logical if the pilot had decided to rely on the AoA protection, because as you said yourself, to get AlphaMax you have to pull the stick full aft and maintain it there.
It is very logical for a guy of his experience to not pull too early when thrust is not felt yet ... but that's another part of the topic ...