^agreed.
by the time they appear on video it looks like they were so far gone out of the performance envelope that any kind of recovery (even if full pitch authority and c of g were restored) was slim to none. one thing you can do in the air if you end up with an uncontrollable pitch up is control the plane in which the pitch is translating (ie bank into a turn to minimize energy loss at best, or at worst- keep it closer to the ground if that's where you're going to end up). with a pitch excursion after rotation (as might have been here, the midwest be1900 crash, etc) there is such a small window to consider this that i'm doubtful that i would have the presence of mind to consider it, frankly.
regarding thrust and pitch- our stall recovery procedures were modified on manufacturer's recommendation in reaction to the AF447 crash to the paradigm of "pitch to break the stall (thrust reduction may be necessary) and then add thrust smoothly" rather than the previous "reduce pitch, firewall and power out of the stall". i recently transitioned off of aircraft that had an elevator thrust compensation system that neutralized the pitch up tendency with thrust application and did wonders for controllability in go-arounds and stall recoveries (hey i need all the help i can get!). i can't help but wonder why this simple yet effective control law algorithm isn't adopted on more aircraft.
edit//grammar
Last edited by OnTheStep; 3rd May 2013 at 13:16.