Nigel, that flight amongst other incidents and accidents (the upset to G-EZJK comes to mind) was why the procedures, discipline and training requirements for post-maintenance check flights have been substantially changed
Appreciated, but I do not understand the point?
Any pilot conducting any test flight should be aware of some basic principles, well documented well before this accident, and probably before WW2. There is no point in testing something if you are betting your life on the test succeeding? Surely you test "High AoA protection" on the assumption it might not work?
As the BEA report stated, another crew had done a similar profile and:
During take-off, a series of messages appeared on the ECAM and the aeroplane switched to alternate law. The CHECK GW message appeared on the MCDU. The crew decided not to continue the flight, which had lasted thirty-six minutes.
and next flight:
The programme available to the crew indicated, for this weight and in clean configuration, a V alpha prot of 171 kt (+/- 4 kt) and a V alpha max of 152 kt (+/- 4 kt). The PF placed the thrust controls in the IDLE position while keeping one hand on the trim wheel. The crew noted the absence of autotrim shut-off and decided to continue verification. The alpha floor function was not activated. The PF noticed that the speed was ten knots less than expected V alpha max. The crew felt the aeroplane sinking and the Captain decided to stop the check. The PF carried out a manoeuvre similar to a stall recovery. There was no stall warning.
Somewhat nearer ideal
