Originally Posted by
ATC Watcher
But isn't it ironinc that , back to the TK AMS report, that it was the less experienced FO that applied the correct basic flying skill procedure when approaching the stall (at stick shaker) , and it is the more experience Capt/instructor that , by taking over, sealed the issue ?
The report also notes that the THY capt., who took over the recovery and then failed to move the throttles, had not had approach-to-stall training for a considerable time. The FO was effectively better trained and qualified to handle the recovery - and the evidence is that he was doing so correctly.
It is maybe more ironic when you compare with BA38 who were in a similar situation but without the benefit of working engines. Capt. Burkill left the PF flying and focused on problem solving and took one action (flaps) which proved to be decisive,
yet he was roundly criticised for it in some quarters, including here, with allegations that he did nothing or "froze".
This crash (IMO) is a textbook example of why Pete Burkill did exactly the right thing by
not taking control.
Also, where before I'd be agreeing with "the crew messed up", I'm now starting to feel sorry for the FO. He's on a training flight with two senior guys watching him, he's got a problem with the plane that he doesn't fully understand (causing issues setting AP etc.), he's been put on a tight approach forcing a glide slope intercept from above, and ending up (maybe inevitably) unstable. He doesn't have the authority (THY SOP) to call the go around, and the capt. won't (for whatever reason), so he's stuck with the unstable approach. Then
all threee crew miss the speed decay, the FO gets stick shaker, reacts correctly, but the **** captain takes control off him and crashes the plane.