Poke Guy. Surely you must be attempting a wind up? It is difficult to believe that anyone flying airliners would pose such a question. As described in the SI 185 current court case, the "S" bend manoeuvre carried out by TSU was a full left and right aileron manoeuvre carried out with harsh control movements which actuated the spoilers and caused mighty concern among the passengers and cabin staff, let alone the first officer.
I might add, that the evidence given in the court by the first officer who was in the aircraft when TSU threw the aircraft around, was given in a calm, steady and unexaggerated way.
The approach attempted by Tsu which included the so called "S" bend was nothing more than a completely badly judged, poorly executed unstabilized approach which contradicted the parameters of a stabilized approach as laid down in the company operations manual. To bash the ailerons from side to side may be acceptable to a RSAF ex fighter pilot, but it shows gross ignorance of the basic principles of flying a jet transport and a complete disregard for passenger comfort. For that manoeuvre alone, the man should have been booted out of his job. From what came out in the court case, I am staggered that management so blatantly covered up his litany of transgressions.
Now about "S"turns or bends. In light training aircraft they are sometimes called a double base leg and may be used during a forced landing after engine failure in order to correct for a misjudged or poorly executed final approach. The dangers of this manoeuvre is that high angles of bank often follow in order to tighten the turns and we all know that the stalling speed increases in a turn. The "S" bend manoeuvre is rarely seen in flying school syllabus.
It is unheard of in B747, B767, B737, Airbus operations. But then,Poke Guy, you were winding us up, weren't you...
[ 21 July 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]