Thread: Habsheim
View Single Post
Old 21st Apr 2014, 02:45
  #799 (permalink)  
CONF iture
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by HN39
The scale of the radio altitude trace is about 1 foot per pixel, and the pen trace is about 3 pixels wide.
Never mind, you still make miracles from such a botched graph when you read tenths of second or half of a foot ...

The story begins with a descending path.
Not too good for a simulated flight that was supposed to simulate Habsheim ...
Is it new to the BEA as they did not mention such discrepancy ... ?
1.16.1.4.1.
Dans le deuxième cas, où le pilote du simulateur était le président de la commission d'enquête, le recoupement de l'évolution de la vitesse en fonction de temps est également excellent, l'altitude du vol simulé étant toutefois toujours très légèrement supérieure à celle du vol réel (+ 8 à 10 pieds).
Never mind the graph shows exactly the opposite, the altitude for the simulated flight being très légèrement inférieure à celle du vol réel (- 8 à 10 pieds).
It must be the same clerk that messed up again ...

At t=2.5 seconds the descending path has changed to level flight, then begins to climb. At t=4.75 seconds the altitude has increased 5 ft and is again equal to that at t=0.
I won't argue with or confirm the data you're ready to see ... but you're telling me that Bechet would have gained 10 ft by commanding PULL UP TOGA from level flight.

But you are constantly changing the subject. The issue was Valphamax, where you disagreed with me, and you have not answered my question: How would you define Valphamax?
Not differently that the FCOM :
"It represents the speed corresponding to the maximum angle of attack that the aircraft can attain in pitch normal law."
CONF iture is offline