Originally Posted by bubbers44
It has been a very long time since we broke a tail off a Boeing but not that long ago our A300 lost it's tail because of a little wake turbulence and copilot rudder action that was conveniently blamed on the incident by Airbus. As has been reported before that Airbus A300 had delamination of the vertical stabilizer coming out of the factory and was patched but Airbus denies that had anything to do with it.
And there I was, believing that since AA587 happened on American soil, the report that explicitly stated that the fin failed at load exceeding ultimate design one, caused by enormous sideslip, brought on by divergent yaw oscillation, originating in F/Os completely unnecessary and excessive rudder inputs, was authored by National Transportation Safety Board and certainly not Airbus.
Things we learn on PPRuNe...
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
wasn't there some thought that the plane was overloaded? Also improper use of anit ice?
Yes, there were such thoughts. While not completely unfounded, what would be their point exactly?
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
a crash is a crash
Nice tautology yet I have to observe that CFIT is not LoC.
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
.and if you stall a plane, regardless of manufacturer and you cannot recover, not only did you screw up by letting the stall happen, but not being able to recover is really not earning your pay.
There are thousands of passenger aeroplanes flying right now that don't meet stall recovery requirements and have been demonstrated in practice to be unrecoverable. How about that?
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
I would like to think of Air France as a first class line
Everyone is free to think world is flat plate carried around on the back of the really big turtle but it would be very impractical to use navigational methods based on this notion.
Originally Posted by sevenstrokeroll
how did we get to the point where a stall isn't right up there with concerns of safe flying?
By imagining things. In real world, stall is still major concern.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
I don't mean to put the magenta line pilots down but what do you do when all the lights go out?
If you paid attention just to Avherald, let alone FSF, you would know that overwhelming majority of us flies just fine without all the electronic gizmos when fit hits the shan.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
My era of pilot friends all knew how to handfly any airplane well.
Sadly, I can't find significant gap anywhere in ASN's list of
crashes following loss of control that would help me pinpoint the golden age when all pilots knew how to fly.
Originally Posted by deptrai
high altitude stall recovery and unusal attitude recovery training at Air France could have been better.
Could be, but no direct benefit would come from it. CVR and FDR records bear no indication that stall was recognized by anyone in the cockpit so no recovery was attempted. Aeroplane's attitude, while excessive for high altitude cruise, was never what is considered to be UA and upset was strictly man-made.
Originally Posted by PBY
So now, when you finally agree with me that it is of a paramount importance to know that, the info should be in the cockpit, why Airbus does not provide this vital info in the QRH?
Because folks who need to know it (we call 'em "pilots"), tend to remember it after first couple of approaches?
Originally Posted by PBY
They do say level the wings before the column when out of stall.
They say something else on the very first page of the manual, which is oft happily disregarded on the PPRuNe.
Originally Posted by PBY
The QRH categorically states as the first action
What's the title of the QRH procedure?