Bear.... whatever... it is you who pulled the stunt of changing your user name, not I and then fuddled around in a smog cloud, I can only presume, with the intent to shake off those that had enough of your ramblings. But you were outed. I am not concerned one way or the other regarding how childish I may appear, because you showed all exactly how childish you yourself are - kettle, meet black pot.... Hence my renaming of your current label to "Lyingman" is simply an amusement on my part. No
harm intended. As you like to note, these are anonymous forums, so it doesn't seem to matter much what I call the avatar behind the label, within the bound of politeness I grant you.
My most recent post was in response to this:
In the climb, the pilot commanded NOSE UP, and the THS did not move. The THS was responding ("not responding") per design, not part of PF's quiver, for the moment (his 'bad').
At STALL, the THS responded immediately, and to the maximum, NOSE UP.
By DESIGN. Responding to PF NOSE UP? Or to gain loading for the airframe when it was less than 1g? Both?
It is this inflammatory and incorrect statement I bring your attention. Stall had noting to do with the position of the THS, the elevator demand DID. The pilot asked for continuous NU, from 2.10.45... the THS followed, as designed. The pilot asked for NU, what else would it do it do? No trim.... justify? Oh, in this case the cheese was already lined up in a stall, also of the pilots doing, some seconds before. Perhaps some ND inputs from the PF, sufficient to get some ND from the THS might have been a good idea? But, that was not what happened, NU on the SS and TO/GA from the engines was requested, more or less the very worst possible combination at that point.
If you are suggesting in some obtuse way that the automation/protections/limits built into the aircraft should/could jump in at the point a stall is "obvious" (AoA the wrong-side of "bloody-hell" + vertical speed in the "oh, crap" region, and groundspeed in the "I can't believe it" realm), and implement a modern version of the stick-pusher, then may be we agree on something. But it is the manner you get there that is most bloody annoying. The quote above is a perfect example of inflammation, a whiff of truth and good dose of fabrication. It doesn't help your case at all.