[quote=ucodegen]This ‘normal law’/’alternate law’ behavior is something I find kind of freaky. There should be some sort of ‘audible’ or ‘visual cue’ that it is operating in ‘alternate law’, not just a warning for something else. It is like driving a car that behaves one way under ‘computer assistance’ and another without – (Stabilitrak works this way – and is kind of freaky in adverse conditions.).[/quote]
There is supposedly an audible enunciation for the switch to alternate law. Furthermore, the aircraft was necessarily in alternate law given the unreliable airspeed indication–and the pilots presumably understood this.
[quote=ucodegen]What gets me is the following:
It looks like no-one looked at the artificial horizon, so they didn’t seem to notice the extremely high AOA. This device functions separately from the pitot tube.[/quote]
The artificial horizon displays the aircraft pitch and roll attitude, not the AoA. This instrument wasn’t necessarily displaying anything catastrophic, even after the plane was hopelessly stalled with a 40° AoA.
[quote=ucodegen]
It also doesn’t seem that they paid attention to the dive-climb and altitude indicators. Combined with high AOA and the altitude spinning downward with a high decent rate – should have clued everybody as to what was going on. Commercial pilots are supposed to be IFR rated. The pitot tube is used for altitude, but only the side vent, not impact pressure. They did get the pitot tube working part way through (giving them good airspeed indication and altitude indication).. and started flying normally.. then with all instruments working, they crashed the plane with poor flight decisions.[/quote]
The static port is located on the fuselage somewhere (certainly on older general aviation aircraft), nowhere near the pitot tube. While it could have iced over, nothing indicates that it did. The pilots were seeing descents as high as -10,000 feet/min. They were certainly aware of what was happening to the aircraft. But…
[quote=ucodegen]
The youngest pilot, the one in control, seems to have his driven more by panic than conscious rational decisions. When told by the superior in the cockpit to release the stick from full-back position, that this was part of the problem, this individual grabs the stick and slams it into full-back position again after hearing that they are nearing the ground. If the plane kept horizontal and made contact with the water, it would have been more of a pancake landing – and more people may have survived.[/quote]
Yes, it appears the young FO reacted tragically to the information he did still have. Aeronautical decision making (ADM) has become a critical new addition to pilot training, even starting at the basic level for private pilot students.
Also, I believe the plane did contact the water in an almost level attitude–but descending at -10,000 feet/min. That is not survivable, and the plane disintegrated on impact.
[quote=ucodegen]
I am amazed that the A330 flight control system doesn’t consider having wildly differing inputs on the flight control as an unusual condition and proceeds to ‘average’ the controls instead. There should be some kind of feedback to the other pilots stick as well as the ability to disable one of the ‘seats’ (imagine a control that decides to fail – would want to disable it). The old systems had the yoke move together.. so you could tell if the other pilot was giving irrational input.[/quote]
I believe Boeing aircraft still have coupled controls. The uncoupled Airbus controls are certainly a point of controversy regarding the AF 447 accident.
