vilas
Thank you for that response.
CONF iture:
Where did you see "clear indications" ?
- CHECK GW message is a clear indication there is an AoA "discrepency"
We cannot get away form the fact that this crew:
- Were conducting a briefed Test Flight
- The Test Schedule called for a Minimum FL100 (crew caried it out at 3000')
- Test Schedule indicated Absolute Min spped at their weight of 107K. The crew caried on until 99K, when the Stall Warning (from the correct AoA sounded) - the VLS indication was correct to the schedule
- The Alpha displays were clearly significantly different than they crew should have expected (pic above)
- The ISATM schedule called for the (Test) crew to record the 3 AoA values prior starting the test. This would have shown the AoA problem
- The Test was to check the functioning of the AoA protections. If you are to Test this, you must assume it will fail, and protect against it - betting your (and others') lives on it is a pretty high stakes gamble
I am not criticising in isolation the crew on the day. How and why they found themselves in that situation is discussed n the report. Management and Training and Supervision are clear factors. However, these are separate from the design characteristics.