Originally Posted by CONF iture
Sensation can absolutely be part of the elements that will guide adequately the inputs.
What don't you get here ?
Be explicit on your disagreement
Sir, I am just an ordinary airline pilot and flying regional turboprop at that. I am not a psychologist, psychiatrist nor psychoanalyst so I really can not comprehend how can some PPRuNers, which I shall not name, suggest that technique that has been proven lethal for too many an aircrew could be used as an safer substitute for procedures we have now. I just can't get it. It is like someone suggesting potassium cyanide as a panacea for life's ills. Irresponsible at the very least.
One of the first thing a pilot who wants to learn how to fly an aircraft by reference to instruments alone must learn is to stop believing his senses and put his trust in instruments, lest he develops some illusion of attitude, turning or acceleration and kills himself flying. Only when this is lesson is mastered, one can progress on the next level: learning how the instruments can betray him and how to cope with it.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
But exiting a dive, to set things more obvious, be it in clear sky or in the clouds, can be done in many ways
It can be done in many ways but many of them are plain wrong and some are plainly lethal. Proper way to rapidly exit a dive is to use maximum wings level pull that won't either stall or overstress the aeroplane. Pilots whose day at work involves pulling the extreme performance single-seaters out of dive, usually do it more precisely by referring to their alpha and G meters then by feel. Those who fly FBW aeroplanes can even do what Airbus pilots do when escaping windshear or terrain in normal law: pull the stick aft as it goes and let the electrons wring out the maximum performance out of the wings.
Originally Posted by HarryMann
I seem to remember suggesting that such a (potentially low-cost) camera installation would likely have help avoid the Madrid take-off configuration accident. Sometimes the aircraft industry seems overly conservative, despite being knwon as a high-tech leader.
I think the industry should make its mind up how much accidents really cost and what that worth is in much better thought through systems and safety double-checks.
The Mk I human eyeball seems to have been sorely undererstimated as a troubleshooting device... ?
While the world outside is dangerous, it is not completely chaotic or anarchic. Industry does make up its mind about safety vs. costs and does it at almost daily basis. What we have here&now is the result of that compromise.
Since you have mention Spanair, configuration indicator in cockpit was working and showing just the wrong config for takeoff. Somehow Mk1 eyeballs, or rather central processing units behind them have seen what wasn't there. If the crew was in such a rush that they didn't read their instruments properly, what were the chances they would pause and use CCTV cameras to check the aeroplane from the outside?