Originally Posted by gums
The jet and its FCS worked as advertised.
Absolutely not - The advertisement is to do the necessary in order to expect alpha max 17.5 deg in this configuration, but certainly not to restrict it to 15 at most.
You can command everything, but HAL is only gonna let the jet "obey" the laws, best it can.
The law in this case is to permit 17.5 deg of alpha and not to restrict it to 15, or even 14 depending on where you look into that BEA Official Report ...
Originally Posted by noske
That document was probably derived from the BEA PDF, and transcribing those DFDR printouts must have been especially error-prone.
I'm not too sure how such document as you posted it is actually obtained ?
Don't you think the transcribing to obtain such format must be part of an automatic process ?
Originally Posted by Dozy
We also know that the Loral DFDR units fitted to the early A320s were later known to be susceptible to write errors when subjected to unexpected shock or vibration. The estimated value of +0248 RA at TGEN335, which CONF iture has helpfully provided in magnified form, is clearly erroneous - therefore it is within the realms of possibility that the previous value is also in error.
Then you should have said that that type of DFDR was also susceptible to write errors when anticipating a shock ... the emotion maybe.
BTW any data from TGEN335 has already no value has the tape is labelled as de synchronized.
That the video evidence clearly does not demonstrate an altitude gain of 10ft before impact with the trees supports this hypothesis in my opinion.
Not more than it demonstrates an altitude loss of 6 ft the second before ...