ventus45;
Originally Posted by ventus45 in post #3028
Then there is the advanced version of the above, the revered "pitch and power". As some have noted, (PJ2 in particular) works OK on climb out, but has wharts on at anywhere near ceiling, aerodynamic, or propulsive.
My point is, all of these "simplistic SOP's" can "lead you up the garden path" and are thus counter productive, and dangerous.
Thinking that maintaining a positive pitch attitude (pick a number, 2, 2.5, 3, 5, degrees - whatever) should be part of a procedure to recover from a stall is idiotic. Thinking that the use of power is a primary or even a seconday way to recover from a stall is idiotic.
I think you're confusing the published response to the UAS with a previously-published stall recovery procedure. Please read my post carefully. I'm not discussing the stall or stall recovery. I am discussing the UAS Memory drill in force at the time of the accident, and also discussing the crew's response to the loss of airspeed information.
It is the UAS procedure to which I refer when I state that maintaining level flight with pitch-and-power settings existing just prior to the event will keep the aircraft in stable, level flight, (obviously the crew has to fly the airplane to do this...), until the pitots and the affected ADRs sorted themselves out.
The crew had all information necessary to maintain level flight, (altitude, VSI, N1, etc), to do this but instead instantly pitched the aircraft up and essentially maintained that pitch up until the aircraft ran out of energy and stalled. That would have been the time to reduce power to idle and pitch the nose down.
Whether recovery from the stall, which had become firmly established with the NU SS inputs after the apogee, was possible or not remains an open question for aeronauticists but the prevailing opinion is, notwithstanding the potential to aerodynamically stall the horizontal stabilizer due to a full-down elevator and without rolling the THS -13 position forward even just a little, that if such recovery had begun around FL350 on the way down, that it was possible. I have read and heard that it is a testimony to the design of the aircraft that the elevator retained some effectiveness right up to impact. Some will disagree with the possibility of recovery or offer other scenarios, lower or higher, but the point is essentially moot after the apogee given the sidestick inputs.
FYI, Boeing and Airbus have already discussed responses to the stall with a view to indicated changes. Airbus presented the changed procedures at the 17th Performance and Operations Conference in Dubai and the pdf can be found
here.