Originally Posted by OC
Certainly it does but that is because it is pilot induced.
OC, as long as you hold that belief, you will have the PIO cause and PIO effect reversed. But you know that and in the big scheme of things it will probably make no difference- unless you encounter PIO yourself.
The training factors are significant in the failure of AF447's crew to recognize and declare a stall, but if they encountered roll PIO during the transition to ALT2 Law, that could be the reason that they did not/could not fly pitch and power successfully and lost track of their energy.
Remember this paragraph from the Aristotel report?
10.
PIO that prevents performance of the task, or that requires the pilot to abandon the task in an attempt to stop the oscillation, is a “severe” PIO; if a Cooper-Harper Handling Qualities Rating is obtained, it is usually 7 or worse (Level 3 or unflyable by handling qualities specifications). Peak-to-peak angular rates are usually greater than ±10 degrees/sec, and control forces greater than ±10 lb, though rate limiting can attenuate the former and result in large increases in the latter.8 “Severe” PIO requires immediate changes to the airplane, and if it occurs in developmental testing the flight test program should be postponed or redirected until the corrections are made.
According to my decaying math skills, initial peak roll rate was on the order of 10 degrees per second for the first 4 oscillation half cycles but if someone would like to look this aspect over more closely, I would appreciate it. I can see evidence in the roll position record that PF's attention was heavily devoted to this problem. (Changing his strategy & adaptation.)