Originally Posted by HN39
That is not what I said in post #622 based on the graph in the report. In the simulation the airplane gained 10 ft and that is equivalent to 1 kt of airspeed.
Good ... then from the 30 ft with a gain of 10 ft at 17 deg of alpha and speed at 119 kt the BEA and yourself agree that the airplane was surviving the 40 ft forest ...
It is ridiculous to dismiss the simulation for no other reason than that you can't see a difference of one knot on that plot.
I am certainly not looking for any kind of "one knot difference" or other 2 kt gust theory to dismiss such ridiculous simulation when they want you to believe that taking 5 additional degrees of alpha in 2 seconds to bring it to alpha max won't make a difference in term of altitude and speed compared to the same aircraft that remains between 14 and 13 of alpha as computed on the graph.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
I think you are wrong to argue that the wind was flat calm, if only for the reasons HN39 has pointed out.
Where did I argue so exactly ... ?
The
atmosphere was calm, and the wind less than 5 kt according to the Air Traffic Controller.
Thanks for bringing to our attention that DFDR Tome 2 of the same document appears to show a figure of 34 ft, in line with the narrative. The version you show magnified in your post is, I presume, the PDF copy, the poor quality and assembly of which we discussed earlier on this thread.
Another curious aspect of this matter is that an HTML version of the BEA report - Habsheim F-GFKC - clearly shows a figure of 24 ft in both Tomes 1 and 2.
Here is the ultimate purpose of my concern. This Official Report has a typographic quality of the 60s at most but certainly not one of the 90s standards. All the "graph" as presented as they are, are a pure joke or an insult to the reader. Too convenient for blurring data and bringing confusion. One crucial Annexe is nowhere to be seen and manipulation in Annexe labeling is even created in an attempt to mask its absence. As the BEA is that unprofessional, we clearly do not need them.
I am concerned that a guy with your background seems to give more credibility to such piece of cr@p from the BEA than to Ray Davis ...