Does this one look like pitch for profile and thurst for speed mis-applied? I am genuinely curious if Q400 does have a relevant pitch-power couple at normal speeds.
Originally Posted by The Colgan report
airplane was at an airspeed of 131 knots. FDR data showed that the control columns moved aft at 2216:27.8 and that the engine power levers were advanced to about 70° (rating detent was 80°) 1 second later.18 The CVR then recorded a sound similar to increased engine power, and FDR data showed that engine power had increased to about 75 percent torque. FDR data also showed that, while engine power was increasing, the airplane pitched up;
Power forward (to add energy enabling certain altitude control) and pitch down (against the flight director) to keep safe flying speed - preferably in the opposite sequence. That is the agreed prevention strategy against re-occurence of that body-count.
I doubt strongly the stall recovery technique for B777 is any different. Sure as hell the A3x0 it is exactly as above. I like to think, within the scope of this thread's discussion, it's better not to unlearn the basics which your passengers might need to survive some rainy night when the pilot will only be reacting instinctively.
The statement "On jet A/C you pitch for profile and thrust for speed (change your habits)" with or without an exclamation mark irks me then.
- It suggests a complete change of perception, removing a vital learned skill. Even for situations where very valid, it sholud only be an overlay finesse how to best manipulate the flight controls.
- It suggests applicability for all jet aircraft but even when valid it does not apply to them all, jets with underslung engines specifically not (unless perfectly path stable which the A320 just isn't).
- It suggests non-applicability for prop aircraft but when valid it does actually apply to them.
- It encourages flight director laziness once a routine builds in.