mm43 wrote:
There is some evidence that this was tried and unfortunately stopped.
The reference is to the ND input by PF.
The question that must be asked is, did PF think that he could recover given enough altitude, but that at that point realize that the A/C would auger in before completing the recovery? Did PF then opt to return to the stable stall with vertical component just over 100 mph in the hope that some would survive?
Well, pasteboard cabinets survived. Suppose the PAX had been in rearward facing seats, and instructed to recline the seats? What more in the way of energy-absorbing collapsable support struts would have been required? After all, there are miles of support struts under those seats already, so that any airline can have any passenger density in any area of the cabin it may desire, cost and complexity be hanged for that.
Yes, I am aware that
bearfoil said that someone was going to say this was a survivable crash, way back when. And I read the exellent helicopter post on this subject. But the PAX here were on top of many feet of crumple zone.
Would someone want to run a parabolic trajectory at 2.5g (normal to wing surface) recovery from a 45 degree descent, starting from the altitude at which PF abandoned the ND effort, and the assumed 1.414 times vertical speed of 100+ mph? This overlooks the time required to effect ND, of course, just for simplicity, as well as speed increase as the ND effort gradually takes effect, but would include the speed increase from starting on a 45 degree slope. Just a first cut to get a ballpark. Thanks, OE.