Originally Posted by AZR
I'm not sure the autotrim was a barrier to stall escape (I understand "barrier" as something wich prevent you (strictly) to escape stall; THS NU will for sure delay the escape, but I'm not qualified enough to say it will prevent it, even if it stay full NU; in fact, my guess would be it prevents not)
AZR, I apologize for including a sentence you did not author.
It seems the wonders of the Windows operating system require great care to avoid posting stray cat and dog comments in conjunction with those you intend.
If I clarify my definition of a barrier as an impediment that can be overcome with some degree of difficulty, I think you will see that a we are still in agreement regarding the import of the nearly full nose up trim.
Originally Posted by Garage Years
Does ANYONE seriously think Airbus is going to change the sidestick to provide force feedback for example? The stick currently is force 'loaded' (spring loaded I believe) and I don't really see the need to change that. But others have previously argued otherwise.
No, I don't think they are going to change that anytime soon. My point in posting the lack of feedback in the stick is merely to explain the "open loop" control condition the PF faced once the aircraft stalled. There was no convenient feedback path for him to know what kind of control displacement he had actually requested. This was primarily due to his extremely rapid mayonnaise stirring control inputs. If he had made
and held a control input, then the surface would eventually catch up to his demand the way it did in the nose up direction. The rapidity of his control inputs well exceeded the ability of the control surfaces to respond.
Originally Posted by BOAC
Mbird - can you expand on (below) please?
Quote:
Once the aircraft is stalled, the control inputs do not have much influence on the aircraft, and sometimes act in a contrary fashion.
BOAC, I am probably not telling you anything you don't already know. Once you stall you will likely find that your control inputs may have a reversed effect in the case of roll (due to adverse yaw), or that the surfaces are relatively ineffective and the aircraft's motions due to vortex shedding and cross channel aerodynamic coupling mask the effects of your control inputs. The elevator inputs are masked by the THS input and likely a post stall phugoid like effect results (a nose bobble). To have an influence, you need to make a control input and hold it or in the case of roll, you need to use the rudder and lay off the ailerons.
