Originally Posted by
CONF iture
Your A320 sim didn't trim up under STALL WRN, and yet my A330 sim did ... as also AF447.
On the contrary, it did trim up, but it hit a limit of 3 degrees nose up. So we re-ran the test by winding in full nose-up trim manually and even with full nose-up trim the sim pitched down successfully on elevator deflection alone before the trim started rolling forward (although the autotrim did respond very quickly - I made a point of adding it into my scan once we started recovery).
Originally Posted by
Organfreak
The Russian pilot who let his son 'steer' that A300 was 'qualified' too, and yet everybody died.
There's a little-known coda to that accident, and that is the story of how the pilots successfully recovered the aircraft from the initial stall, but overcorrected by pulling up too long and caused a second stall that sealed their fate. What the investigators discovered in the sim was that if the pilots had simply let go of the control columns, the A310's protections would have stabilised and righted the aircraft on their own. Sadly, the Russian pilots were not trained on this feature of the A310's design.
Originally Posted by
OK465
So that although the movements of the control surfaces were consistent with pilot inputs throughout the entire event, there is no direct statement of finding to the effect that after the aircraft exited the flight envelope the aircraft longitudinal movements were still consistent with these pilot inputs even though control surface positions were. Nor does this appear to imply anything further.
I suspect that this is simply an acknowledgement of the fact that they can't replicate the behaviour of the actual aircraft in the stall without stalling the aircraft and measuring it (any test pilots want to volunteer?). By it's very definition, stall is a regime that is out of controlled flight and there are myriad forces acting on the airframe that are not easily modelled.