Hi,
Owain Glyndwr,
anyone who has flown even model airplanes can tell you that a stable aircraft does not need airspeed information to continue safe flight
Sure!
All the evidence from other similar incidents is that doing nothing was a viable (and arguably the best) option.
As a researcher i would prefer to deliver to pilots a better System than one that you need to "wait and see" every time. Wait and see (some kind of hysteresis) is wise, for sure.
In this case the brief failure of obsolete sensors (sub heated, high thermal inertia, etc.) contributed to a chain of events.
This law is in fact 'graceful degradation'
I am not talking about this law. I am talking about the System (A/C + PF) during the transient. And i not mentioned yet the man machine interface.
The system was never given the opportunity to show stability in roll as it was continually perturbed by pilot input.
A fact.
What we are seeing there is a pilot struggling to come to terms with a new set of unfamiliar dynamics
Struggling to understand by hand "testing the plane"?
As for the probes, it it clear that the amount of heat being applied was not enough to handle the rate of ice accumulation, which is a random variable.
To control the (important) probe temperature is VERY EASY, RELIABLE and K.I.S.S. TO THE EXTREME. Einstein commented about how K.i.S.S. you can go. There are limits.
it should be simple enough to up the heating rate to cope.
This was my first feeling: SUB HEATED.
no need for fancy feedback systems
Still k.I.S.S.
KISS is still a good principle]
And will be forever. Leonardo da Vinci stated: Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
But this is to be covered when commenting on the man machine interface.
