Hi Lyman;
Re your observation in Post #816 that, "AoA can be derived, . . ."
Hm, I don't think so. I'm not an aeronautical engineer but how can AoA be "derived"?
Lonewolf_50;
Re, "How do you train someone (Captain Dubois) when the info to train him with doesn't exist? Further that lack of data points, the flight sims can't be soundly programmed to give "what it does when stalled" training."
It is true that approach-to-stall recovery training isn't the same as training to get a transport aircraft out of a stall. However the guidance in FCTMs is clear, that a high descent rate that cannot be arrested indicates that the aircraft is stalled and the AoA must be reduced.
"This leaves any pilot, not just Captain Dubois, lacking a chance to be in a full stall situation in a training scenario. Granted, stall prevention is the general training focus, for good and valid reasons."
While there is little to no actual flight data on aircraft behaviour in a full stall, that does not mean that the simulator is demonstrating entirely and completely unreliable or incorrect behaviour. The degree to which behaviour is or isn't replicated may be more apparent to engineers than to pilots who must recover the airplane. What I'm saying here is, I think an A330 Level D simulator is useful and not irrelevant. Airbus and the BEA must have thought so because they replicated AF447 and in the Final Report even drew graphs in comparison with AF447's flight data.
What was missing in AF447 was the acceptance that the airplane was stalled, and the knowledge and/or comprehension that the wing must be unloaded, the AoA reduced in order to recover, and that for this to occur the only way is to point the nose down.
Re, (my bolding), "To sum up: I don't think he'd "seen that before" and thus was playing catch up from the moment he entered the cockpit. Had what he saw, as you suggest, been something he recognized as a stalled A330 -- something "he'd seen before" -- my estimate is that he'd have directed Bonin to make stall recovery control inputs rather than the directions he did give him."
Yes, I agree with you on all points. Given a full understanding of the problem (the stall), it's what flight crews would do. The puzzle is in why an altimeter reducing by a thousand feet every 3 seconds while the nose was pointed up, didn't register and that fact is purely for hindsight speculation.
Re, "It is also my estimate that CVR transcripts would have included some rather forceful language, to include such bon mots as "merde, we're stalled, get the &$^# nose down!" or words to that effect."
Yes, I have to agree that's how someone would say it!
Dozy;
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Generations of pilots learned to fly smoothly by a proper use of the trim controls. The Airbus architecture minimizes the value of this skill...
Originally Posted by Dozywannabe
"Well yes, but that doesn't make the Airbus FBW system bad, dangerous or worse than anything else - it's just an iterative example of how technology has changed. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but isn't there a hint of 'why can't they just do it the old-fashioned way' about that point?"
It is neither practically nor philosophically merely just an "iterative example of how technology has changed." It is a far more complex human phenomenon that requires the respect of awareness. Technology changes who we are and if we are blind to that, we are blind to its dangers while lauding its benefits.
That said, I should have thought the reason obvious; - because the old-fashioned way worked and saves lives on occasions when technology gives up and hands a mess over to the human pilot who can competently, safely take over and live to enter the snag in the log book.
You already know I have no problem with automation and all technological advances just so long as one knows one's craft and can do the job when the bytes and pixels quit - in other words, one is competent at one's job as a pilot and never lets anyone think that technology should be respected. Understood, yes!, but never respected and that means knowing how to fly and think regardless of technology.