Machinbird + ChristiaanJ
The choice is to act or to delay your action. There is a belief that by acting quickly you can deal with the problem (and this is indeed the case in some situations) but more often than not it is better to pause and evaluate. This is frequently the case with DIO. One thinks of the supposed Prius issue which turned out to be driver induced. Drivers panicked and blamed the machine for their actions where taking their foot of the accelerator would have solved the problem.
With aircraft a pause with a light touch works wonders. Of course I agree that sometimes it isn't possible but most of the time it is. In the AF447 example there was ample time for the PF to pause and evaluate. He didn't and so ended up in a stall. But what we do have here is a training and possibly experience issue not an aircraft issue. The aircraft did what the PF told it to do. If the pilot had left things, the aircraft would have most likely stayed in a stable condition within its flight envelope. A properly disciplined and non-panicking pilot would have paused, evaluated and then followed the SOP for UAS. He would have worked in concert with his colleague to find a solution. PIO isn't the issue here (except as a mechanical process) but the pilot's conduct is (I am sorry to say). A look at the Korean Airlines Flight 8509 accident shows how a competent crew dealt with a roll issue due to an aircraft fault (I am referencing the first crew not the second). But in AF447 we cannot escape the issue of crew competence or rather the lack of it.
Last edited by Old Carthusian; 21st Dec 2011 at 02:15.