Originally Posted by
Capn Bloggs
My head hurts. How about we just monitor the @#$%^ speed??
I'm not satisfied with that. Monitoring something as if the factors that go into it are a surprise, is not enough when we have an understanding of their cause (especially when that cause stems in our hands). The AOA-airspeed relationship may not be 2+2, but it's not particle physics either. (Actually, it's y=1/x)
Originally Posted by
vilas
I will say again leave Asiana alone. All they needed to do was scan their speed regularly which is a must in every approach, every type of aircraft, with ATHR or manual thrust. If there was a call SPEED when the the speed was Vapp-5 they would have added thrust and landed properly and eventually retired happily without knowing anything about AoA. It was poor knowledge of AFS and Skill. If you think your AoA theory would have saved them sorry I can't agree. We do things simultaneously. Let's not count nano seconds.
Why do you say to leave Asiana alone? Is there some difference between it and a more moderate airspeed loss that makes it inapplicable?
No doubt had someone seen the airspeed indicator they would have noticed the problem. I agree. But I disagree that that's "all they needed to do." They also needed, at a more basic level, to
not cause that airspeed loss to begin with... Which entails an understanding, that they lacked, that aft stick force does that.
And I'm trying to understand why you're resisting that. Back to my crashing a car straight into a wall analogy, you're saying that "all they needed to do" was to watch more carefully how close they're getting to the wall, and make a callout; and they'd eventually retire happy without knowing about how mashing the gas pedal accelerates them toward the wall. And that such knowledge would not have saved them. Why? On the contrary, that's exactly what would have saved them, at a stage prior to monitoring.
Monitoring is supposed to add an extra layer of safety, not serve as a cover to remove the basic mechanism underneath.
You called it "poor ... skill," but that doesn't explain anything, it just puts a label on what's poor. And I'm explaining what actually constitutes that poor skill, (so that people can actually do something about it instead of merely tsk-tsk'ing over its poorness) but you're saying no.
You scoff at counting nanoseconds like I'm counting the angels on the head of a pin... no, I'm describing the extreme basics, or at least what should be.