Originally Posted by OC
This article seems to define the phenomenon as being anything that authors wish it to be. The evidence is shakey and in some places totally worthless and someone has clearly wasted money commissioning the article. Definitely part of the shoal.
I was expecting this type response. Typical hairy-chested "just fly the aircraft" comment of someone who has never encountered PIO because his aircraft experience involves highly damped flying machines.
My first knowledge of PIO was a news clip explaining how the Navy had lost a Sea Dart aircraft during a high speed flyby.
Later, while assigned to a Test and Evaluation facility, one of the engineers led me to the original full accident report on the Sageburner F-4 PIO accident.
I've personally never encountered PIO inflight, but have experienced roll PIO while flying an early visual simulator with a ~1/3 second visual display computational lag. Disconcerting to say the least. I had to go back to the flight instrument display to regain control. (Note: These were actual instruments-not on the visual display). Small motions did not trigger the PIO, but rapid-high gain lateral motions did. Until you experience the effect, you would have trouble believing it could happen. The onset is sudden. When it does happen, you tend to blame yourself because you are "in control."
The paper I referenced earlier has very little in new concepts. The new part involves the "pilot's mental model of the aircraft" wording. It does an excellent job of bringing together available information on the subject of PIO. The AF447 initial "roll problem" seems to fit the 10 PIO characteristics listed in the paper, but I'll let BEA make the determination, They have better versions of the data.
And for the conspiracy theorists, if BEA does not comment on roll PIO in any manner, either to affirm or deny, then you will have a red flag indicator.