Lyman,

At 02:12:44 the pitch is about level, the V/S is 15000 fpm, the stall warning is operating, and the captain says "(!) it's impossible".

If the nose is pointing up, the airplane should be going up, doesn't it? Hence the verbal confusion about going up or down. Are they talking of attitude or vertical speed?

HazelNuts39

Both, I would say. What was Airspeed, I doubt Captain would claim "impossible" with only two cues?

If airspeed was <150knots, would he not command "Nose Down"? Where were the elevators at this time?

FTM, where was THS? But we know that, did he look? MAXNU? He might well be expressing chagrin at the THS' (apparent) lack of response "Why so 'stuck'....."

llagonne66
Indeed ...
But .. for observe what ?
What were their powers?
What phases of the investigation do they have observed or potentially participate ?
Representative of French families have asked for an observer .. this was refused

Lyman,

Airspeed (indicated) had been around 60 kts, momentarily reached 150 kts at 02:12: 43. Elevators were at -15 degrees (NU).

llagonne66

Dependent on which of the two circles you claim as residence, Where then is the data? The complete data?

There is no record of most of the record of the CVR, transcript or audio form.

Your question is not relevant, it has no benefit other than rhetoric. My question is a simple one, who has the record, is it available?

Can you answer that (honest) question?

My claim is not of conspiracy whatsoever. Someone has not released the data.

Prove me wrong? Until mine is answered, yours is merely an implication, unprovable.....

merci le cirque

Lyman,
As HazelNuts39 has pointed out the time listed above, the altitude was 20,028 ft. At 02:13:32, less than one minute later, the altitude was 10,092 ft.

It would seem to me that had the Captain recognized the situation at 02:12:44, that indeed they were fully stalled and falling fast, it was marginal the airplane could be saved applying significant nose down and holding it for a significant period of time. Less than a minute later, it became impossible. Debating the THS position, the elevator position, nose up, nose down, Side-stick visible, side-stick not visible, side-stick forward, side-stick back, it was too late. The Captain's words "it's impossible" prophetically applied to a possible recovery although I don't think that was what he was referring to at the time.

lyman, jcjeant
 

So much have been said over and over again that I can just go back almost two years ago.

http://www.pprune.org/6426258-post568.html

I have not changed my mind since that post.
Point taken : I should not have reacted to your unending ramblings about the BEA hiding the truth :O.
So please go on and on and on and on ... I'll watch from the shadows ;)

I well remember your post. Like you, I have confidence that what has been provided by the BEA is and was relevant to the conduct of the flight. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/icon14.gif

Turbine D,

The captain recognized at 02:12:44 that they were fully stalled, and one minute later when the pitch attitude was 15 degrees NU he said only "no no no don't climb" ???

EDIT: If you recognize you are stalled there's only one thing to do: recover. At 20,000 ft you don't ask yourselves whether recovery is still possible.

At the first time, the VS was 15000. In about a minute, they fell only 10000.

That means the VS reduced substantially. Very substantially. What happened that was "Impossible" that drastically reduced their Vertical descent? Greatly increased forward velocity?

The lack of evidence, evidence that surely exists, would, I believe , provide answers. Answers that are invaluable to the safety of flight.

I do not believe in conspiracies, especially here. The lack of evidence is a fact. There is a demonstrable refusal to disclose the information. I could not care less the reasons for witholding it.

It is witheld, end of. That has f-all to do with sinister planning to commit a crime. (The legal definition of "criminal conspiracy").

Some imaginations are at high speed. One can accept the BEA report in the absence of full disclosure, or reject it. And anywhere in beween.

I do not trust it.

"The absence of FULL DISCLOSURE, is a species of FRAUD"

SUPREME COURT.....

Nothing drastic. Vertical speed reduced gradually. Air density?

If VS reduced at a constant rate, would it not be ~5000 fpm at 10000 feet?

Averaging 10000fpm for that portion of vertical descent?

Would that have elicited some conversation in the cockpit?

He never realized what is going on in the first place. He had leaft flightdeck in order, nothing indicating this crossing of the ICTZ would be extra-ordinary and returned after first officers managed to stall the (allegedly, legendarily) unstallable.

Just a guess but it might be a good one. Or not. Unlike NTSB that goes to great length to make a coherent picture of pilot's performance since first lessons by, BEA's info on pilots is remarkably scarce.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Description befitting a paperback novel but bearing no resemblance to anything recorded on CVR or DFDR. Unlike Stearman, all A330 currently in use are fitted with closed cockpit, therefore somewhat isolating the pilots from the elements. Airstream at high alpha and low speed would definitively sound different than it's usual in cruise but it takes quite a stretch of imagination to believe crew would recognize airstream as chaotic solely by listening to it. Especially as we're discussing the crews that didn't find warning computer shouting STALLSTALLSTALLSTALLSTALL worthy of comment.

TT shows they were not inexperienced. All the other crews involved also had zero experience in manual handling of A330 in alternate law at high latitude yet none even dented their steeds. Experienced pilot also: stalled their aeroplanes fatally, lost controls, hit the ground they didn't know was there, ran out of fuel &c.

That is very particular conclusion based on nothing but PPRuNe misinformation that stick positions are ueber-relevant.

Desperate -yes. Attempting to figure out anything and failing -yes. INOP or problematic controls - not at all. They worked as designed and obliged pilot's inputs dutifully into self-destruction.

ND very briefly with rapid reversal back to NU as nose went down.

If so he was dead wrong, soon to be just dead.

It is possible, it happens every day but seldom results in catastrophe.

What happened when stick went forward?

There was no loss of control before the climb. At least not in this local universe. Continuity of the controls and that aeroplane reacted to elevator movement up to splashdown is established beyond doubt.

True but irrelevant. Do classic controls always produce the same aeroplane response for the same yoke displacement or it depends on weight, C.G., speed, altitude? Proper way to fly passenger transport aeroplane is by attitude indicator, not by feel. Who checks THS position on classics after take-off anyway? When required attitude and performance is achieved, residual trim force is trimmed out but notice taken of trim position after trimming - naaaaaaay.

Let the fact that unstalled aeroplanes don't fall from the sky at RoD in excess of 10 kilofeet per minute with nose held up high do not detract us from pursuing this interesting line of thought.

if indeed was so, their failing at that is unsurprising because controls worked all the time. They just could control themselves and eventually lost the control of the aeroplane.

By Jove, if this litany of yours ever becomes self-fulfilling prophecy by affecting someone so feebly-minded to believe it, you will have nothing to be proud about!

It is not believable to you.

The investigation.

Power of objecting to investigation methods and results, which was not exercised. I must admit that this power is nothing compared to some posters' here special powers of pulling stunningly unrealistic hypotheses out of thin air.

If French families signed The Convention on International Civil Aviation, there would be no reason to deny them the representative. Do you have a slightest idea what was the purpose and the legal status of the BEA investigation or are you just expressing amazement that the real world's arrangement is somewhat at odds with your notion of how it ought to be?

Are you accusing BEA of falsifying the CVR transcript?

BEA has original, anyone interested has transcript. If you have internet, you can download it too.

Data is released. too bad it was not to your liking. It just wasn't its purpose to satisfy anyone, it had to do something with improving the flight safety.

Clandestino

The entire transcript? Post it for us?

Many thanks

Lyman,
Don't know if you took Physics in High School or not, but there was a lesson some schools offered: If you drop a feather in a vacuum tube, it reaches the bottom of the tube at the same time as a marble (a tie). Add some atmosphere (air), the marble wins the race. Add even more atmosphere, the marble wins by a much bigger margin.

Now think about two feathers attached to a hay stalk falling flat in ever increasing atmosphere (more air). It falls ever slower during descent, as the air gets thicker creating more resistance, proving several important aspects of physics. Same is true of an A-330 falling nearly flat from 38,000 feet to 20,082 feet to 10,092 feet and on down.
It is not and that is why it is not ~5000 fpm at 10,000 feet.
Ever denser air is a known fact.
Is this part of the imagined "missing CVR record?"
Only if it is imagined but portrayed as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

TurbineD

Air density is a known fact, so is 15000 fpm. I think it is possible Bonin is trying to "sell" overspeed to Captain. With flat Pitch and an increase to 15k in the descent, Bonin may be showing the Captain, "Look, Nose Down, greatly enhanced loss of altitude." He then "PULLS", and the VS decreases. Remember, speeds are not to be trusted, nor is STALL.... It is only us who know they read true.

These are desperate moments, the crew will try anything, and having never experienced a STALL in a large swept wing jet, who could fault their "ingenuity"?

I am trying to make a case for more understanding of this accident, not less.

You say air density, but that implies a passive crew...I think they were innovating, what else could they do?

If you are satisfied that the investigator is satisfied, fine. Throughout, the BEA leave avenues unsearched, and leave open (apparently) room for doubt.

They expect lack of interest to help them prove their case, and they get it.

Another approach could be: "This is everything we have, here are the possibilities." "here, there is great disagreement, shouting, so, this...."

The unending theme of this unsatisfactory conclusion is "Why"? Absent the fullness of data, that remains the height of injustice. The least fair of all settlements is Blame....And here, an opportunity to learn, squandered.

Yes exactly
Those families (or representative) are one of the parties interested in the investigation process like are AF Airbus and others that can be added
They are also partie of the trial to come like AF Airbus and others that can be added ..
All but the representative of families have the right to be observers
Something unfair in The Convention on International Civil Aviation
If the representative of the families had the right to sign the convention .. be sure he will
Seems it's denied to them ...
And for the release of documents to public by BEA:
The FDR listing was never released (so far)

Not all, just the representatives of the ICAO member states that are considered to have interest in investigation such as countries where airframe, engines or systems manufacturers are located or if their citizens perished in the catastrophe.

What do you think we are basing our discussion of aeroplane's attitude altitude, control sticks and control surfaces positions on?


Siiiiigh.... of course it is denied, they are not sovereign state interested in in having international air transport. Take E. Cochran's advice and take your problem to United Nations. They are the only ones that can do something about it.

Anything unclear about it?

On the graphics released by the BEA in the final report .. not on the FDR listing
So .. who is the representative of the ICAO for the french citizens who perished in this accident ?

The NTSB is actually the outlier there. European agencies such as the AAIB and BEA tend to only reference crew performance as a whole. The NTSB has courted controversy in the past with individual crew performance assessments.

Care to give us some examples?

The latter was the source data for the former. As has been asked before - are you asserting that the data has been manipulated, and on what grounds?

To the best of my knowledge, no accident investigation has released raw DFDR data in its entirety.