Originally Posted by BOAC
I understood from the report that they were in fact able to maintain a high nose attitude in pitch with side-stick/THS and/or lower the nose occasionally with side stick? Is that not 'control', even if 'up' was the wrong 'control'? Am I wrong?
Probably yes.
If stick is pressed against the left stop and aeroplane rolls gently to the right, you are out of control.
If stick is pulled against the rear stop and nose is just bobbing around, you are out of control.
Father of William Langewiesche wrote about the unsavoury fate of the pilots that did not understand that their inability to get the nose up was a consequence of busting the lift limit so they were pulling hard on their sticks and kept their aeroplanes stalled until ground impact delivered coup de grace. His book was first published sixty eight years ago. Seems that some of airfolks out there missed this very important lesson.
Originally Posted by rudderrudderrat
I can't imagine how you were trained to recover from a stall warning without a briefing
Oh, that. When we go practice it, briefing is just confirmation we have read and understood the procedure put down in manual. Same with TCAS or GPWS. I was referring to your general statement there are no surprises in sim. Well, my instructors have some latitude about failures they introduce during LOFT so it's not just about following the script for me.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
I think it's the only large US-made airliner with a T-tail - and thus susceptible to the full-blown deep stall phenomenon.
Actually, T-tail makes aeroplane far more susceptible to deep stall than conventional tail but then there are some low tails that will deep stall and some T-tails that won't. I can't comment on 727.
Originally Posted by roullisholandais
but it seems that BEA could not do the best to clarify that lack
Lack of clarification is strictly in the eyes of the beholder, or more precisely speaking: in the mind of the one having no ability to understand how and why Airbus was exempt from demonstrating the compliance with conventional requirements. Instead of trying to cure own ignorance through learning and understanding, such a person can in extremis take umbrage at world for not complying with his notions.
Originally Posted by Carjockey
I also remember the days when the Captain used to walk through the aircraft, and a very reassuring thing it was too.
Reduction to single-pilot operation just to make courtesy call in cabin? Not gonna happen, if you ask me.
Originally Posted by Lyman
My proposal is that the THS prevented a STALL, allowing entry into what can best be described as a MUSH.... Whatever you call it, it bore no resemblance to a normal STALL.
There was drastic increase in drag and reduction in lift at extreme angle of attack. You may call it Mickey Mouse if it suits you but in every serious aerodynamic treatise it is called stall.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Normally (at least I hope) legal experts appointed by the judge hearing the case must also be in possession of all these evidences.
Not in my local universe. Using recorders for anything but flight safety improvement could easily unravel last half-a-century of efforts towards the safer skies. Idea is that investigators will duly report suspected criminal activities they come across and judges will refrain from taking recorded data as evidence. It does not work perfectly all the time and some people may find the arrangement outrageous as they might still be subscribed to puerile notion of improving safety via legal punishment.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Virtually none of the conclusions expressed here give me comfort.
Why? Would you accept only what is comforting even if it isn't factual?