Originally Posted by Dozy
You're taking the absolute value given in the BEA report out of context and grafting it to the Airbus documentation in a way that is not consistent with the way the documentation is written in order to claim that there should have been an expectation of 17.5 degrees, when that doesn't seem to be the case.
As 17.5 deg value for alpha max at CONF3 given by the BEA is not good enough for you ... where do you think the BEA got that value if not from Airbus ?
True I should always remember that you still don't know
which config was used in Habsheim ... !?
As OG attested to - the Alpha Max command in High AoA Protection gives as much as it can, then likely waits a fraction of a second to stabilise before determining whether the remaining AoA is to be used for extra pitch or for bank input.
Another nice piece of disinformation. Who should I credit it to, OG or you ... ?
As I said earlier, I have a suspicion that the airspeed deltas have an effect on how long it takes to consider the attitude "stable", and in a case such as this one where the aircraft was decelerating almost right up to impact, the duration would likely be longer than if it had airspeed in reserve.
Then Bechet in his simulator just proved your suspicion wrong ...
Originally Posted by gums
Gotta tellya, Confit, that until I see the actual FCS charts/functions for modes and such, I'll stay with Doze and others that the plane gave everything it was "programmed " do.
Sorry gums but I go by the book, now if the the plane behaved as per an unpublished program ... it was the BEA duty to detail it afterwords.