Originally Posted by Dozy
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.
... but never have acknowledged it since JAN 8th when you pretended otherwise.
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.
I have not such argument - But if I had one it could be how the Airbus documentation describes the normal high AoA protection functioning but not when under given circumstances further additional restrictions apply.
There seems to be a definite short delay between acquiring 15 degrees AoA and going further.
Where do you see such definite short delay ... ?
How so? Please elaborate.
Under similar deceleration Bechet had obviously no delay to go straight to alpha max.
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.
Until you publicly acknowledge how the BEA work is questionable, I won't miss the opportunity to make you face their and your own contradictions ...
Originally Posted by Owain Glyndwr
Although Airbus test pilots routinely made high AOA demonstrations with alphafloor switched off they invariably compensated for that by selecting a level of thrust commensurate with maintaining speed and altitude.
... with maintaining altitude, speed not being dependent on the level of thrust.