Originally Posted by AirRabbit
I don’t want to bore you with math, but the answer is that the A300 is over 7 times as sensitive as the B767; important enough to repeat … over 7 times as sensitive!! If you say this another way … the amount of rudder actually deflected for each pound of force on the rudder pedal above the breakout force is almost 9 times as much in the A300 as in the B767.
True, but largely irrelevant unless someone provides the reference where it says a) rudder on any transport category aeroplane is normally used to control bank or b) that large, rapid and alternating control inputs have reasonable use on any aircraft. Go on, find any single circumstance on any single aeroplane where inflight rapid stop to stop movements in any axis make sense.
Originally Posted by AirRabit
However, I should also acknowledge that, in my opinion at least, pilots are not often enough trained on the FULL aerodynamic envelope, and how to manage that envelope, of the airplane they fly.
True, but largely irrelevant to case discussed as aeroplane was well within the envelope when it hit the wake and was chased out of it by inappropriate inputs on rudder pedals. It was not as if large slip oscillations was brought on by external factors so we need to teach pilots how to fight it. Better teach them how not to start it and while...
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
I don’t believe that education is the fix-all remedy
... here it would just do the work.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
And like anything else, the content of that education, training, and experience has to be appropriate for what the person (here, the pilot) will be expected to face and handle professionally and completely.
If other aeroplanes, of the same type or different, were regularly falling out of sky with their tails torn off after hitting the wake vortex, then I might concede you have a point here and poor average line pilot is indeed ill-equipped to deal with the horrible rudder.
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
I think that this F/O was probably one of those individuals who took a lot of pride in his airmanship.
According to the report, chapter 1.5.2.1. he was regarded as above average pilot so pride would not be misplaced. However, his misunderstanding that he was instructed under AAMP to use rudder unconditionally when faced with slight upset turned out to be fatal. Should we call this "incomplete airmanship"?
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
I think he was not advised of, and very probably not trained on, the problems that can develop with maximum control input and repeated maximum control reversals.
Perchance because conventional wisdom considers such inputs completely useless and extremely dangerous so has just one thing to say about them: don't.
Originally Posted by teldorserius
Simply put a plane has design limitations, generally predicated on G force
That's just very, very small fraction of the limitations. BTW, limitations are not optional, you have to obey them all.
Originally Posted by teldorserious
But all things equal we are not talking about a plane flying through tops at Vmo with the pilots standing on the rudders, but a departure, slow speeds, well under Va.
Fin failure happened at 251 kt, Va was 270. 1 it takes a lot of subjectivity to put it under "well below Va" which is not to say it is safe to do whatever you want faar below Va. Large enough sideslip might produce extreme load thorough high Cl when rhoveesquared is lacking.
Originally Posted by teldorserious
So a tail coming off at such slow speeds defies logic
It does only if your premises include completely wrong picture of lateral dynamic stability and aircraft-pilot coupling.
Originally Posted by teldorserious
We aren't talking about building up resonance frequencies that need occilations on the order hundreds of hz, that typically happen well past Vne.
No, we are talking about dynamically unstable yaw that reached extreme amplitude at frequency below 1Hz.
Originally Posted by teldorserious
People can say all they want that test pilots can't account for every action that a pilot will possibly pull in an plane, but there is a reason why test pilots go up and slam everything up and down, back and forth, side to side, then bring it down for the engineers to see if the math was right.
They might use full displacement. They might use rapid but they would never use large, rapid and alternating. They know better than killing themselves.
Originally Posted by teldorserious
Pure baloney to consider that any pilot moving the rudder three times will in any way exceed what a test pilot would do over thousands of hours, with much more rigourous flight imputs.
One has to weigh NTSB well explained, consistent and documented report against two words: "pure baloney". Tough one, eh?
Originally Posted by teldorserious
This is just the recalibration going on in the industry right now where water isn't wet, the sky isn't blue, grass isn't green, and Va doesn't mean full deflection but rather, a worthless number, because you know, Airbus says so
No, such recalibration is just going on around anyonmous internet fora where people promote brazen falsehoods without any fear of consequences.