I side with the ORIGINAL NTSB finding. Its as simple as that.
People writing in here can deny actual flight physics, can insult me for no reason, can act as if they know everything, can make up "facts", etc. The worst part is (yawn) going on and on and on about off-topic A320 non-flare flight, as if that somehow erases Airbus's errors in flare.
And stop the "flare at 150'" nonsense. Also, going to the near stall doesn't mean exceeding stall alpha. Try again with your weird emotional grunting, cause its not working.
Originally, the early NTSB reports mentioned it all. Page 194 of the NTSB Report (the BEA French section) says:
"However, this accident demonstrates that, by offsetting the pilot's ANU sidestick inputs, the phugoid-damping feedback function of the alpha-protection mode could make flaring the airplane to attain the recommended ditching touchdown parameters more difficult." --- That statement didn't make it into the final report, but was in the appendix as a reported document change at the behest of BEA.
Originally Posted by
Owain Glyndwr
@Quagmire WOW! – go to the edge of a stall at 30 ft RA with no stall protection – I don’t think you will find many takers on this forum.
Except I never said remove stall protection. Its should be there, just not the phugoid feedback, as the NTSB originally noted. Get it right if you want to drone on incessantly! Too much of your nonsense to correct here.
I know I must be on the right track since weird arguments and insults are the best some are able to muster to counter me and the original NTSB findings!!!!
Originally Posted by
Amadis of Gaul
Not for nothing, Quagmire, but you could have saved yourself a whole lot of breath by just stating right off the bat that you don't like Airbus period. You're not the first or the last.
On the contrary, I do like Airbus for their other flight modes. Stop the emotional garbage and insults you spew. I can disagree, like the NTSB initially did, with how flare control laws on A320 work. Don't like it?
Originally Posted by
zzuf
2. For whatever reason, Airbus decided this characteristic was unacceptable and included a damping term in the flight control laws.
"For whatever reason", really? You pretend to understand flight, yet don't know? They don't have a valid reason. Fact is, as the NTSB noted originally, they made a mistake to put the damping in there during flare.
Originally Posted by
zzuf
8. If you give the pilot sufficient authority to stop the phugoid at any time, by definition you no longer have alpha protect.
Not at all true. Alpha protect remains intact, which is a good thing, even in flare, the regime this thread is about.
Originally Posted by
Amadis of Gaul
far-fetched that a bona-fide engineer would open with "I just saw the movie Sully, and...", but who knows these days?
I can't watch a movie? Everybody knows movies may not be accurate. Common sense. Not a difficult concept to master.
Originally Posted by
Owain Glyndwr
specification prepared by someone else for the MD11 - an aircraft whose landing record was nothing to write home about.
Wrong on many, many levels. ... You assume a lot, and very wrongly.
...Although you are right the MD-11 handling qualities in landing are not optimal. I didn't work on that part of the control laws when on the MD-11. Wish I had been assigned that. Very off-topic to this thread, yet I'll say I'm not happy with the decisions made on MD-11. Back then, I had just finished a lot of eigenvector handling qualities research, and management all came from DC-9 and 727 backgrounds, and were mostly electrical engineers with a lot of misconceptions about flight physics & human factors.
Its similar to some of the rude, insulting people on this forum like Owain who can't use logic properly, carry misconceptions, and like to insult.
So if you can't win an argument against me and the original NTSB findings, just insult your way to victory. Yeah, that works.