Sorry if this is going back a few pages. I'm still trying to catch up, but had to comment on this:
NARVAL wrote:
I think that we should keep in mind the very scant knowledge and training of the pilots at the time in the aerodynamics, stall recovery techniques, stall recognition…It was NEVER thought at the time that those planes could fly beyond the « approach to stall ». It was never thought either that the plane could « fly » with 40 degrees AOA and only 8 or 10 degrees of nose up.
And there was I, a very humble SLF, and happy to be abused with that name by all you god-like pilots, because I was under the impression that the reason I trusted my life to the people at the pointy-end was because they were like me, shared my fascination with things aeronautical, and had both the interest in and the knowledge of just what it is that keeps them up there amongst the clouds; that they actually understood something about the "little arrows" (underneath the wing) and the big ones (on top), and the significance of getting these the wrong way round.
And now I learn that it comes as a complete surprise to experienced 'pilots' that the flow of air over an aerofoil doesn't always produce LIFT, and that even though the nose is pointing up, you might be going down. Furthermore, I've learnt that the 'pilots' responsible for the safety of the SLF at the back of 447 hadn't actually been trained in what to do if the auntonomics dropped out and left them in control. Which makes me wonder why they were there. You could make more money by using the seats for more passengers.
Somebody please re-assure me that I'm wrong; that what NARVAL wrote, and what was so warmly applauded by quite a few 'pilots' on this forum, does not represent the average level of expertise of commercial pilots, that most of them do actually understand what keeps them in the air, because otherwise I'm sticking to sailing!