Someome sent this to me recently:
Simulators Still NotAccurate Enough On Stalls
As experts struggle to identify whythe crew of Air France 447 lost control of their A330 over the South AtlanticOcean nearly four years ago, the industry is also still struggling to developthe precision data needed to accurately reproduce a stall in a Level Dsimulator.
The lack of accurate stall data limits entry and recovery practice because thecomputers running the simulators have no idea how the aircraft will actuallyperform.
Safety experts believe better data is needed to properly prepare pilots for aportion of the aircraft’s performance envelope that was once thought easy toavoid.
At a recent conference held at the
RoyalAeronautical Society in London, officials from both Airbus and Boeingjoined forces to explain the situation to date as well as where the industrystill needs to go.
Airbus test pilot Terry Lutz believes the day may be coming when pilots willneed to hand over more control to onboard computers when the situation becomestoo chaotic.
This is reminiscent of the
blue “level”button in use aboard the four-place Cirrus SR22 piston single thatautomatically brings the aircraft back to a wings-level attitude even if theautopilot is turned off.
Boeing engineer Paul Bolds-Moorhead reiterated the monumental task of developingaccurate lift and stall data in the high-altitude regime, where the stall andunusual-attitude behaviour of transport aircraft is typically never tested.
So, the industry is also still struggling to develop the precision data needed to accurately reproduce a stall in a Level D simulator.
If that is true, meaning fidelity is not assured, then why is high and low altitude stall recovery still a required sequence in the type rating syllabus for various jet transports. I find it hard to comprehend that the certification of the real aircraft does not include high altitude stall recovery flown by the test pilot.