Originally Posted by
CONF iture
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 ... !?
If you say it was CONF 3 and the report says it was CONF 3, then it was CONF 3. I've been aware of that for a while.
Of course the BEA would have got the value from Airbus. But the issue I have with your position regarding 17.5deg is not the value itself - it's your interpretation of combining the absolute value as given in the BEA report with the less-specific (regarding values and how they are used by the EFCS) documentation that Airbus provided to flight crew.
Your argument seems to be that Airbus - to use your own word - "advertised" that in CONF 3, 17.5 degrees AoA would definitely be achieved under any circumstance with the application of full back-stick, when the documentation says no such thing.
AZR said much the same thing to you a couple of pages back:
Originally Posted by
AlphaZuluRomeo
From an aerodynamic point of view, there were probably more than 2.5 deg before stall. From an FCS point of view, for this to be correct, the FCOM should read that alphamax was to be attained immediately and without any damping.
Does the BEA report or the FCOM read this? No. You just quoted both.
The NTSB report on Hudson event, and numerous other discussions here and there have put forward several explanations as to why alphamax(17.5) would, in certain circonstances, not be reached immediately.
Another nice piece of disinformation.
On what are you basing that accusation? There seems to be a definite short delay between acquiring 15 degrees AoA and going further. OG reckoned it was related to damping.
Then Bechet in his simulator just proved your suspicion wrong ...
How so? Please elaborate. For one thing, you yourself said that Bechet's work in the simulator and real-world testing did not involve a precise reconstruction of the event - so I'm puzzled as to how they could disprove an assertion if that was the case.