ORAC, thanks for the link to a very interesting system, the PCA. It would be very usefull as a backup and not too difficult to implement. But without a direct recommendation from the Aviation Authorities, I'm afraid it will remain at being just a very good idea.
It is unlikely to be instinctive and the odds are that the change will be initially inserted at the wrong time thus magnifying the amplitude. Given enough time one may get close to determining the optimum time to insert the change to dampen out the phugoid.
Milt, that was also my understanding about compensating / opposing the a/c movement with inverse action. Ones input could jeopardise the situation if acting at the wrong wave sequence. Are this type of actions trained very often?
I think even this ability was lost on the 747-400 and it's not possible. I think it is accepted a total hydraulics failure is virtually non-survivable.
rainboe, why should it? Why not use electric or pneumatic backup sources if the engines are still running? odd it seems, but who am I to disagree with that.
Old Smokey, having read ORAC's link, we will find a very good example of an MD-11 controled by thrust power only (although trough that computerised engine control system named PCA). Given its peculiar CofG, it is very interesting how it worked so well.
GD&L
