Originally Posted by
PH-OY-73
Gentlemen, ladies,
Although the airplane was apparently never in an extreme attitude, the pilot somehow did not recognize the stall condition, or the position of the horiz. stabiliser. Could it be overreliance on Airbus' Flt Ctl Systems and mentally 'ruling out' basic indications?
In any case, the following statement, especially its last paragraph, in the Airbus Flight Crew Training Manual (OP-020, Abnormal Attitudes) reflects what I believe is a fundamental problem in the attitude of Airbus, and their design philosophy, and could be a contributing factor to the fate of AF 447.
"It is very unlikely that the aircraft will reach these attitudes, because fly-by-wire provides protection to ensure rapid reaction far in advance. This will minimize the effect and potential for such aerodynamic
upsets.
The effectiveness of fly-by-wire architecture, and the existence of control laws, eliminate the need for upset recovery maneuvers to be trained on protected Airbus aircraft.
"...on protected Airbus aircraft"
Once in alternate law, the aircraft was not protected anymore and the reaction to a stall warning is like in any other airplane.
Ofcourse a correct pilot action is needed.
So calling this a fundamental problem in the attitude of Airbus and their design philosophy seems incorrect.
Alternate law and stall recovery should be included in the training of the pilots.