Air France Crash...Still Makes No Sense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877

The official explanation still makes no sense.

They say -

The outside temperature is much warmer than forecast, The two copilots discuss the unusually elevated external temperature.

If the temperature is “Elevated” how do the pitot tubes ice over?? Ice doesn’t form in hot weather. It forms in cold.

Bonin reacts irrationally. He pulls back on the side stick to put the airplane into a steep climb, despite having recently discussed the fact that the plane could not safely ascend due to the unusually high external temperature.

First they say - Then the stall warning sounds. This is a synthesized human voice that repeatedly calls out, "Stall!" in English, followed by a loud and intentionally annoying sound called a "cricket." A stall is a potentially dangerous situation that can result from flying too slowly. At a critical speed, a wing suddenly becomes much less effective at generating lift, and a plane can plunge precipitously

Then they say - The plane is soon climbing at a blistering rate of 7000 feet per minute. While it is gaining altitude, it is losing speed, until it is crawling along at only 93 knots,

So the plane is in a stall and the pilot pulls up on the stick (which is wrong) yet the plane is gaining altitude at a blistering rate. Well if the plane is in a stall how is it gaining altitude?????? That makes no sense.

Again, the stall alarm begins to sound. Still, the pilots continue to ignore it and the reason may be that they believe it is impossible for them to stall the airplane. It's not an entirely unreasonable idea: The Airbus is a fly-by-wire plane; the control inputs are not fed directly to the control surfaces, but to a computer, which then in turn commands actuators that move the ailerons, rudder, elevator, and flaps. The vast majority of the time, the computer operates within what's known as normal law, which means that the computer will not enact any control movements that would cause the plane to leave its flight envelope. "You can't stall the airplane in normal law," says Godfrey Camilleri, a flight instructor who teaches Airbus 330 systems to US Airways pilots.

But once the computer lost its airspeed data, it disconnected the autopilot and switched from normal law to "alternate law," a regime with far fewer restrictions on what a pilot can do. "Once you're in alternate law, you can stall the airplane," Camilleri says.

So the pilots are trained that the computer will not let them do anything to crash the plane but in reality that is not really true. So they wonder why they were ignoring the stall warning when really they were trained that the plane won’t stall so why listen to it.

Bonin may have assumed that the stall warning was spurious because he didn't realize that the plane could remove its own restrictions against stalling and, indeed, had done so

Stupid design by Airbus…. Either the pilot is in charge or the computer is in charge. You can’t have it both ways. Decide who is flying the plane.

Unlike the control yokes of a Boeing jetliner, the side sticks on an Airbus are "asynchronous"—that is, they move independently. "If the person in the right seat is pulling back on the joystick, the person in the left seat doesn't feel it," says Dr. David Esser, a professor of aeronautical science at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. "Their stick doesn't move just because the other one does, unlike the old-fashioned mechanical systems like you find in small planes, where if you turn one, the [other] one turns the same way." Robert has no idea that, despite their conversation about descending, Bonin has continued to pull back on the side stick.

As the plane approaches 10,000 feet, Robert tries to take back the controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in "dual input" mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues to pull back. The nose remains high.

More stupid designs by airbus. The pilot and the co pilot can be doing opposite instructions (with the same controls) and won’t even know it??? Then the plane averages the two inputs…..Are you kidding me…. Did these engineers think at all before they designed this plane? Dumbest sh*t I ever heard. None of this still explains how the tail of the plane ended up miles away from the rest of the wreckage. It the plane was falling out of the sky flat (at an angle with its nose up) why would the tail be ripped off. I am still waiting for that to be explained.