Come on Clandestino – you know there is no one here saying that rudder should be normally used to control bank or that large, rapid, alternating control inputs have any reasonable use on any airplane, and certainly not me. The point is that such control applications make NO sense. And I agree that this particular airplane was well within the normal operations envelope and would warrant normal control inputs to control the airplane … in fact, this specific pilot did just that, and did so a mere 9 seconds previously to his initiating these obviously out-of-bounds over-control applications, when this encounter was no more serious than the one he had just transitioned quite successfully. How do I know that? Take a look at the FDR readouts and see for yourself. And, of course, teaching pilots the way to control an airplane throughout the entire envelope is entirely appropriate – and had that been accomplished, this might not have happened.
Also, I’m not sure what “horrible rudder” you are referencing … the one on the A-300-600? I have yet to see anyone say that this is a “horrible rudder.” Attempting to fix something that isn’t broken is like believing that gun control will stop killings due to guns. Guns don’t kill people. People using guns kill other people. But that’s a whole different issue. It wasn’t the rudder that came off the airplane … it was the entire vertical fin that was ripped off … and it was ripped off because of the misuse of the rudder control, accompanying the misuse of the lateral controls – don’t forget that when the ailerons are deployed, so are the roll-control spoilers – which add their own substantial influence into the mix.
I agree that airplanes around the globe are not falling out of the sky because of a loss of the vertical fin. I would love to think that this is due to the superb training received by the pilot groups. However, I tend to believe that at least to the same level of satisfaction you have for the training that currently exists, I believe it is uncommon to see encounters with wing-tip vortices that are handled the way this pilot did the second time. Rather, I believe most pilots deal with those encounters the way this pilot did on his first encounter with the vortex. The question should be – why didn’t he do the same thing he did previously?
Also, I believe you are jumping on the Advanced Maneuver Training that the airline was using. As I said some years ago, I have had the opportunity to see and fly a good share of that same training program – and I saw nothing that could be even remotely interpreted to be permission to use the rudder unconditionally when encountering the slightest upset. It is true that this program discussed the use of rudder – and it was introduced with no more fanfare or encouragement than were the elevator and ailerons. And, as I recall, the times when it made sense to use the rudder were those cases where the nose was uncontrollably pitched up, and the rudder could be used to bring the nose of the airplane back down toward the horizon. That is still true and still makes sense. In my experience with that particular program there was no hint that pilots were encouraged to use the rudder to address the recovery of a “slight upset.” However, the rudder is on the airplane for a specific reason – just as are the elevators and ailerons (including the spoilers). Recall the video of the B747 crash in the middle-east recently? The nose of the airplane was uncontrollably high – and it was apparent to me that the pilot was struggling to get it down … very likely on the rudder to help him do just that. Unfortunately, there was insufficient time and altitude for it to work.