Originally Posted by
FullWings
Yes. But it might be an ending point as well, if you are doing it for the wrong reasons.
I think what some of us are trying to say is that if you are in tune with your aircraft, it becomes apparent very quickly what kind of situation you are dealing with. Initial rotation is approximately 10 degrees. No matter what alarms are going off, if the aircraft rises into the air as it normally does then it is almost certain that you are not approaching a stall. Maintain takeoff power setting, continue rotation to 15 degrees and get some space between you and the ground. At some point later, according to preference, execute the Airspeed Unreliable procedures.
On the other hand, if the aircraft acts mushy and hovers in ground effect, then respect the stick shaker. Gingerly apply full power, carefully manage the pitch, accelerate and climb.
If a pilot puts the aircraft into the proper rotation attitude and the PIC can't tell the difference between these two situations
within seconds, then, quite frankly, they are not qualified to be in that seat. People's lives are literally hanging in the balance as to whether the Captain can make this distinction.
Let me stress, however, the crew's actions in either of the MAX accidents are not necessarily because they were "bad" pilots. I do not have any personal experience with the training and operational cultures at either Ethiopian or Lion Air. If these crews were simply responding according to their training, then the scrutiny should be placed there.
I strongly suspect that there is a mismatch between the proficiency standard implicit in the aircraft design and the actual training and experience level in the field. Sadly, I think Boeing, the airlines and the certificate authorities are all aware of this mismatch, but fail to either 1) insist the aircraft design be sufficiently fault tolerant, or 2) emphasize the need for better training and deeper experience.