Quote Originally Posted by Evan View Post
Yes, but they were misleading at 2h 10min 05. When the idea to pull up first came to mind.

Not if you refuse to look carefully at the FDR and see how very far from 'pulling up the whole time' it really was. Then the discussion can't be had.
Evan, he was pulling up all the time on average, and I am talking about short-term moving average, not just overall...

Now, ok, in a "traditional" plane (including Boeing FBW), you pull say 1/4 back and the plane quickly stabilizes at the new AoA and eventually it will reach its new speed of equilibrium for that AoA (after the phugoid oscillations if not dampened by the pilot or the FBW).

Now, in an Airbus in normal or alternate law, pull back 1/4 and it means keeping more than 1G, there is no equilibrium to be reached ever with the control pulled anything back. Even in normal law when the speed goes down it transitions from G-on-stick to pitch-rate-on-stick so in both cases it would keep pitching up indefinitely, if it's not by protections (most of them lost in alternate law) or physical limitations (like stalling).

Now, the pilot when hand-flying (the same than a driver when driving) is part of a closed-loop control system. You just don't put the elevator at 1/4 back and leave it there. You have a performance goal in mind (remember that conversation???) and compare the actual performance with the desired performance and make the necessary adjustments in the control. That's why you see the pilots moving the yoke or stick almost all the time in an approach to landing. Now, what was the performance goal that this pilot had in mind again???? Because the way that he was beating mayonnaise with the stick has no rational correlation with him trying to achieve any specific performance. The point is not what was the instantaneous position of the stick at each second. The point is that by doing what he did with the stick he actively performed an unsustainable skyrocketing climb (and he might have lost the speeds but the other 8 instruments were consistent with this crazy climb) and, when a warning that is actually an APPROACH to stall warning sounded, he pulled up again sending the pitch up again and the AoA with it and actively stalling the plane, and kept pulling up on average whcih made the AoA increase to 40 degrees, ignoring the fact that the pitch was showing 10 deg up, the vertical speed was 10K fpm down, the altimeters were unwinding like crazy, and did I mention the stall warning that since the first "stall" announcement at the top of the climb was sounding uninterruptedly for 30 seconds?

Say that you drive the car in a road that is straight but a bit uneven and there are gusting crosswinds. You will need to make permanent adjustments to keep the car on the desired lane, and you will compare the actual track of the car with the desired track (i.e. keep the lane) to make continuous adjustments in the steering wheel. If you start to move the steering wheel all over the place but with a clear average to the left, you will very soon depart the road and then declare "but I was NOT turning left all the time".

Even the pilot admitted that "I was pulling up all the time". While if you read the fine print that is not exactly what he did at each instant, it is clear that that was his main focus and what he did on average (again, even short-term moving average).