AF447 : Commentaires - Page 30
Item 2 of the BEA:
- Inappropriate actions on orders destabilizing the trajectory;
Certainly, if the shares were appropriate there would have been no accident.
Regarding the first few seconds, extracted from forensic report:
The pilot responds to the alarm ... ... his first actions are consistent with the pursuit of mastery of the path by controlling jerk reaction based on the information available ...
This is consistent with the indication of the tendency bar flight director whose order is guiding nose ...
It is said at the beginning, so good ... then it goes bad ... Why?
Well, because ... see the list of the post before and its consequences on the steering screens:
Enough is enough.
Noting two points:
• the difficulty of driving a hybrid law, little change in the pitch axis but almost doubled rates on the roll axis that mobilized too pilot resources which could not cope with everything else, including consequences of the reactivation of the FD, the Flight Director.
• To underestimate the difficulty of the action suddenly doubled roll rate, experts have reconstructed the drivers as follows:
- 5 sessions of simultors some dedicated solely to the acquisition of control in Alternate 2B, without any failures elsewhere.
- Day demonstration flight in good weather, with no parasite fault, no uncontrolled descent commissioning, no setting unexpected turn, no ECAM messages and alarms of various failures, and especially no effect surprise.
Knowing what was going to happen, the pilot obviously moved with his shy moderation Sidestick to conclude:
"Compared to conventional aircraft, the pilot of the aircraft alternate 2 law, at high altitude, is very easy."
In these circumstances, I want to believe ...
To overwhelm the pilots could not do better than this travesty of flight "demonstration" ...