iceman50
It was not just Airbus that re-stated the "new / old" stall procedure, Boeing did as well. I believe that Boeing, Airbus, other manufacturers and the regulators got together and the "new/old" procedures were emphasised.
Thanks again, iceman50. Only word I'd (gently
) query is 'emphasised,' though - surely, at the time of AF447, the 'old' drill had been completely replaced by the 'new' one>?
previous advice was along the lines of 'full power and seek to maintain assigned altitude'?
So the old 'nose down and add power carefully' rule wasn't even there to be
'emphasised'? it had been completely replaced by the new - and, in my view, flawed - new 'full power and stay level' one?
xcitation
In this case the Training Capt (Don Grange ) applies full thrust. This prevents a stall however the A/P is unable to correct its nose up attitude and is unable to increase its IAS. It can only be recovered by a gentle descent.
Thanks, xcitation - shows exactly why the 'standard operating procedure' in operation at the time of AF447 appears to have been flawed - or, at best, inadequate.
So the AF447 PF appears to have done exactly what 'the book' (and his instructors) said at the time - applied TO/GA power and tried to maintain level flight. But, looking at the various press stories, and many comments on this thread, a lot of people (possibly already a majority of people) already think that he was guilty of 'pilot error.'
Maybe the investigators will invent a completely-new accident cause in this case, though - something like 'handbook error'..........?