HundredPercentPlease wrote:
"I too shall declare my interest: A320 Captain.
I really don't know where to start with this thread. So much noise, so little signal. The number of red herrings and long irrelevant side tracks is so great that no one can even start to address them.
The PF quickly and correctly diagnosed the situation. Loss of airspeed indication, resulting in AP/AT off and Alternate Law. He then incorrectly pitched up to 10° until the AoA was just 2° from the stall.
In this perilous position, the AoA increased again to 6° and the aircraft stalled. The response was incorrect with TOGA + pitch
up.
So, two apparent errors. So much has been said about the wrong procedure being used (TOGA + pitch up is used in many other procedures) and a lack of training that I won't bother. But here is something frightening:
Most older Airbus pilots have done their time in cranky old jets and turboprops, where you fly by
pitch. Everything is done by pitch settings - choosing, setting, adjusting, waiting and so on. However, in the world of the safety committee it is fine to pluck young lads straight from a Seneca and place them into an Airbus. To mitigate the risk, the flight director must be on at all times. Now all the cadet has to do is put the square in the centre of the cross. Never has a pitch been noticed nor noted.
I asked 5 first officers in the cruise to look me in the eye and tell me what pitch we were at (2.5°). 4 cadets answered between 5° and 10°
, and one ex TP guy answered correctly at 3°. Not much of a sample, but indicative I suspect.
The Airbus is a fine aircraft. It is conventional, and simple. On top is a thick layer of cotton wool, that should protect us from our silly mistakes.
Once the cotton wool is removed, we are back into a simple jet. The snag is that with the current drive to train/recruit people as quickly and cheaply as possible, not one of the recent arrivals has ever flown in "simple jet mode" (by pitch and thrust). Incredibly in our airline it is now even prohibited to take off with the flight directors off.
I feel sorry for the two FOs on the flight deck. Without the FD they will have been in new territory. Without the airspeed, it is no time to have to guess pitch settings and develop a strategy to keep the thing in the air.
I hope the airlines have a good think about this. I imagine the safety departments will, but nothing will happen due to the cost of recruiting people with experience on conventional types.
PS: Below 60 knots I imagine the stall warning is inhibited because there is not enough airflow over the AoA vane to make it accurate and trustworthy.
PPS: Has any Airbus pilot here ever actually heard the stall warning in the sim? "
My interest: 36 years flying militarily and commercially, 90 aircraft types as PIC, expertise in flight instruction, experimental flight test and more. Management degree in air transportation.
You are essentially right on the money! I do however think that the layer of cotton shouldn't be there at all, assuming the pilot in command is qualified, by my standards. FD is an aid only at pilot discretion, pencil pushers should be kept out of such decisions. From what I read here and other threads, and my study of NTSB accident reports, it is risky to fly as passenger nowadays, without a solution in the horizon. Until people like us both with our qualifications make the call on how to run an airline.