Hello HarryMann
There is at least one instance that shows that a member of the A300 family has been recovered from a stall, from a lot lower altitude, 4100ft.
A A310, Tarom, approaching Orly, France, 1994 has been recovered at 800 ft, and landed safely, with no injuries or damage, from an uncontrolled climb and stall at 4100ft, pitch of 60 degrees, and airspeed of 30knots.
But it was a very well understood stall situation though, with very quick, proper ND, and roll, aggressive reactions from the pilots.
So, based on that one could even say that at 10000ft there was hope.
Originally Posted by
HarryMann
...I find it quite incredible that so many are suggesting (albeit frequently doing it between the lines), that the aircraft may have been irrecoverable once fully stalled soon after reaching the apogee.
It's a fairly conventional aerod. design, and I see no reason we should start comparing it to a 'T' tailed a/c operating with an aft c.g.
The fact it stayed at a stable AoA (probably determined by the THS setting) and just rocked its wings (+/- 20° max), maintained a reasonable airflow and forward speed component, make me think all was definitely not lost until say, at a guess, 25 > 20,000 ft.
One element I don't have an answer yet about the Stick, is what is the effect of "duration" in a certain position of the stick.
a. Is the actuating of a control surface proportional with the duration of the stick in a certain position?
or,
b. Is the actuating of a control surface, proportional only with the position of the stick, regardless of its duration?
One other thing, and I know this will not be accepted immediately by all Airbus cockpit crew .. I am not convinced that the airbus sidestick design is optimum for all situations (I'll leave it at that for now!).