Originally Posted by Owain Glyndwr
Consequently I see no reason why the point I was emphasising :
"the EFCS behaves as a damper of the oscillations, commanding appropriate variations of angle of attack in a way that, when the aircraft is slowing down, makes it pitch downward and vice versa"
should not be a valid explanation of the reason why alphamax was not developed at Habsheim.
Simply because you omit the necessary initial conditions :
"Additionally, in these high angle of attack situations, with a tendency towards phugoid movement, studied by longitudinal stability,
in which the aeroplane oscillates between two kinetic and potential energy levels"
Such oscillations were taking place in Bilbao due to atmospheric disturbance.
It was not the case in Habsheim.
Air Safety Week July 18 2001
To change the outcome in dynamic wind conditions near the ground, Airbus plans to modify the software to eliminate pitch rate as a controlling factor in alpha protection.
Again, you omit to take in consideration the initial conditions : "
in dynamic wind conditions"
Was it the case in Habsheim ?
Originally Posted by gums
I bet that the pilot would have donated vital parts of his anatomy to gain 100 feet in about 1300 feet of horizontal travel, ya think? 7 seconds at 115 knots +/-
He didn't need 100 feet but just a tenth of it to survive the situation he put himself in and come back for a landing. It was all in the aerodynamics with still 2.5 deg to grab to get to alpha max and engines already at 83% N1.