Sly, Machinbird. It is not a training issue, per se, insofar as some here are extrapolating holes in ab initio for younger pilots.
STALL recovery needn't be trained in large jets: it is not supposed to occur, and no actual training can be designed for it anyway.
UAS cannot be trained, as in the type experienced lately in Airbus. Witness the meters from AB re: "Don't reconnect AUTOPILOT". "Review STALL procedures," etc. Then, "Wait xxx to reconnect autoflight," etc.
To a large extent, it cannot even be briefed: for 447, it was poorly addressed by both the a/c manufacturer and the line. The Probes issues, though patent, reflect the attitudes present that allowed this crash to happen.
It is NOT established that the PF's initial inputs were NOT an attempt to establish a flight path until speeds returned. How easy to discard this, since everyone wishes to discuss the follow on to this critical event's inception?
Crew were dumped into manual operation abruptly, the jet wanted handling, and it was downhill from there.
Red Herring? How about actively avoiding the discussion to be had re: the onset of Upset?
BEA will be asked to prove the airframe climbed abruptly and STALLED solely as a result of the crew's actions.
I see no such proof. On offer is a gassy spill from Herring merchants.
imo.
Last edited by Lyman; 19th Nov 2011 at 14:10.