Originally Posted by
tubby linton
Quagmire, Halifax was due to pilots forgetting to fly the aircraft, rather than just watching the automation. It had nothing to do with the aircraft protections..If they did pull up it would have been load factor protection to +2g as the flaps were out, and this protection is using the aircraft certified limits as a target. I do wonder what you are trying to prove with your discussion of the protections, or is it data gathering for a law suit?
Its obvious the Halifax accident started from using flight path angle hold and drifting down. That part is clear, in only the first part of the scenario.
Understand when the pilots finally pulled up, it would be helpful to know if they were able to use all the alpha possible, up to stall, close to the ground where they tried to pull up. .... Why assume it took over 2g's to recover? Any evidence of that, like FDR plots? Or just a guess? We need FDR plots.
When I started this thread, I was exploring what happened between the Aircraft Performance Study statements for the Sully incident and the NTSB Accident report, and later found some other BEA involvment and earlier NTSB statements. Then some on here reminded me there have been other similar alpha-protect accidents in the past. Then the FAA statements were found. I'm not involved with lawyers or courts, and just want the NTSB and FAA to stand up for their own statements. The way the world works, governmental authorities like those are the way to get real change.