Originally Posted by TC-DCA
Is that true that in the case of AF 447, even if the stick was at neutral position AFTER the beginning of the stall by the PF, the aircraft would have maintained elevators AT FULL NOSE UP to maintain 1G as it's Airbus rule, and with stick full fwd, the elevators will be also in nose up but in half nose up position. True ?
If the stick were held at neutral, FCS would try to maintain constant vertical flightpath which would tend to exacerbate the stall but FCS does not use elevators alone to achieve demanded G, it uses THS full time - unless THS inhibition threshold is reached (e.g. less than 0.5G actual vertical acceleration)
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
So it'll be impossible to recover the aircraft even with full fwd stick, also aggravated by the THS that was at FULL NOSE UP due to pilot actions. True ?
False. Push forward and FCS moves THS and elevator towards nose-down position to comply with G demand.
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
As we know, in clean config, the g load limit is +2.5g positive, so with a bank to 67 degrees for example, (or a high positive pitch), the load factor will be approximately 2.5g, so does it means that we'll loose authorities in pitch even by pulling it full back or full fwd as we are in g limit ? Is that true ?
It's true 67 degrees banked coordinated turn demands 2.5 G so no pitch up authority is available but high positive pitch does not automatically imply 2.5G. It's about pitchup rate, not angle.
Say, whaddaya need 67 deg banked turn on transport aeroplane for?
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
I remember the Gulf Air crash with that.
GF072 nevere came anywhere near G or bank limits.
Have a look at the final report.
Originally Posted by gums
On the thread about the Indonisian event, the comments about Airbus flight contol law and reversion sequencces are confusing.
Because they were wrıtten by confused posters. Any similarity between this thread and that is not coincidental.
Originally Posted by gums
If you look at the laws in the FCOM, they try to "protect" the plane ( not the pilot)
Lack of ejection seats on FBW Airbi makes pilot and aeroplane inseparable until the aeroplane has come to complete halt. Therefore protections are not at all ill-conceived.
Originally Posted by gums
Meanwhile the plane is climbing without a pilot command.
What plane are you referring to? FBW Airbus will maintain constant vertical flightpath but to climb, demand must be made by the pilot and it was in AF447 case. Very emphatically.
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
the aicraft is not really stable and doesn't maintain the pitch ?
It is vertical flightpath stable up to 33deg bank. It adjusts the pitch to maintain flightpath.
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
That'll be strange for a pilot to see his aircraft pitching up with stick at neutral in a particular condition, like a turbulence, and then, they'll note it to the maintenance log as "uncommanded pitch and altitude changemente in cruise/climb/descent"
In real life, such a TLB entry would lead to tech refresher at the very least.
Originally Posted by TC-DCA
if we do a turn of 50 degrees
...intentionally, flying the line, in Airbus, you get fired and unemployable.
Originally Posted by vilas
Conventional airplane don't trim back but they have been stalled by pilots through mishandling and crashed because of faulty stall recovery procedure.
I suppose you mean "not following procedure", not procedure being faulty per se.