How about you lot reference the report not the journos' interpretations.
How about we pool together the collective information, which includes articles from the media, which also includes classic comments from Qantas
PR such as this:
"In correcting the aircraft’s path, the crew was very conscious they were operating in congested airspace and had limited room to manoeuvre, which added to the sense of turbulence in the cabin.“
This was also "behind the paywall" that so many of you get upset with, hence my posting of The Age article here.
Reference:
We simply cannot allow facts to get in the way of a good story.
Having read the report the following appears to be FACT:
- the crew were not aware of the required holding speed above FL200
- the aircraft was allowed to slow below minimum maneuvering speed
- in the "stall recovery" the wings were not leveled in order to "remain within the protected airspace of the hold" - @ FL220??
- following the
minimalist "stall recovery", the captain "pulled back on the control column to increase the pitch angle to prevent further descent." ??
- when the stick shaker was again (predictably) activated the captain "again pushed forward on the control column to reduce the aircraft’s pitch angle and increased thrust slightly." Slightly!?!?
This
appears to have been written off as a "but we weren't trained how to do high altitude stalls." but the airmanship and handling skills displayed by the crew was pretty lackluster...