Some remaining outstanding issues
Bonsoir Chris Scott,
Thank you for your long description of the A320 launch-customers pilots type rating. I could compare it to my own MD-80's TR at the same moment. Despite the MD-80's were already "old" aircrafts our TR had many similarities, but of course no flight with test pilots, not alphafloor flight. But like you, only one base-training sortie on the a/c, after VACBI, FBS and FFS. That only one flight was around 1 hour or less, verifying that the real plane felt still easier than the FFS, and to say we did a real flight !
I wanted to point that flying alpha prot or alpha floor on A320 FFS is reliable, as the FFS has the exact reproduction of the EFCS rules. That is very different from trying to test i.e. stalls who have never been done in flight, and whose behaviour is still unknown and could not be "reproduced" on the FFS.
My purpose was to say to DozyWannabe that the FFS simulation from BECHET/BEA was totally reliable, and consequently too that the Hazelnuts39's demonstration perfectly applies (about "sealed software", see (1)).
Continuing the demonstration, it suggests that the fact that pulling the stick three seconds later and getting in alpha prot which had not been previewed by Asseline -and missing in the short "briefing" (gums You are right, that was a very poor "briefing" !) - modified seriously the pitch control reponses.
I don't forget that Hazelnuts39's conclusion reminds that it was not enough to replace the late thrust of Asseline.
Asseline is writing many times in his book that he surely was wrong to trust his altitude. we know from the crash itself and the videos that the plane's real altitude was nearly the same that the RA. The question seems still to be open : did Asseline read 100 FT on his baro-altimeter, when the DFDR records an altitude complying with the Radar altitude, and Mazières telling him clearly about RA ?
The BEA report is saying too that the crew did not contest the FCS (at the time of the enquiry, which is some years earlier than Asseline's book).
(1) re:"sealed software" : Asseline said that working with Thomson they first asked to AI -or AS ?- they needed the copy of the EFCS software. Asseline said they recieved a negative answer, but AI-or AS?- accepted to give them an original EFCS software in a box they could not open or read or copy
Last edited by roulishollandais; 9th Mar 2014 at 17:49.
Reason: bracket missing, spelling