Gentlemen and Ladies (not so much in order of preference or political correctness, but order of “who does it”),
I am not familiar with the basic and advanced training concepts in areas other than North America, but……
I would wager a months pay that pilots on the west side of the Atlantic, at a ration of 9 to 1 or greater, would have, prior to AA 587, said that if all systems were operating normally (specifically rudder limiter), that “stop to stop” would be within Part 25 certification limits and would NOT have resulted in catastrophic airframe damage. I was wrong…..We were wrong.
After the accident, and after research, it became apparent that even NACA documents from the twenties showed this was not true. But we were not educated or trained of such, in fact, for many of us, the opposite. There is reference on the web still today that –
” VA
design maneuvering speed (stalling speed at the maximum legal G-force, and hence the maximum speed at which abrupt, full deflection, control inputs will not cause the aircraft to exceed its G-force limit). Maneuvering speed is limited by aircraft structural characteristics.
1-18-07
Not true, as a result of the investigation into AA 587.
Perhaps the pilot/pilots involved were “rough” with the airframe. But with existing knowledge, no one would have thought they would compromise the airframe, resulting in a catastrophic failure.
Yes, the Advanced Manueveing Course may have been a contributor. So may have the “Rube Golberg” Rudder Limeter system incorporated in the A-300 series (what were they thinking?).
Unfortunatly in this business, wreckage and bodies are the major empasis for education. Sad but true.
“There but for the grace of God……..”