Originally Posted by
JammedStab
As I go through the Airbus Upset Recovery Training they mention about how we used to try to maintain altitude in a stall recovery in the sim until the obvious became obvious and it was not longer trained that way.
But one does have to ask, how did it become that way in the first place. Was there a desire by the Powers That Be to not have an ATC violation or was it assumed that a stall could only ever happen close to the ground.
Was this something that came from the manufacturers or the regulators?
Perhaps it is all lost in the sands of time but it would be interesting to know how it was done back in the '60's or earlier.
Anyone?
Can't speak for Airbus but we used to differentiate between "stall without risk of imminent ground contact" and "stall well clear of ground" on several types I flew. "Without risk of imminent ground contact" it was like the current "shove stick forward, accelerate, gently pull" while "with risk of imminent ground contact" you'd apply maximum thrust and try to lose as little altitude as possible while accelerating.
AFAIK this technique was rescinded after or at least around the Air France accident, probably with the background that there are circumstances where it will not work, i.e. if you're so far behind the power curve that the aircraft will not accelerate without dropping the nose, and given that a stalled wing can only be recovered by lowering angle of attack.
I'd still be reluctant to push forward heartily if I e.g. botched a turn during a circling approach/visual pattern and got a rattle of the stick shaker, where a dab of power will accelerate the A/C sufficiently to avoid harm. The current theory says "push down" regardless of circumstances, but I haven't so far got a reply whether that's really a good idea in the "very low" scenario.