Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Doesn't matter if it behaves differently, it's still the same system.
Depends on one's agenda; if one believes that main lessons of AA587 are: never use rudder for roll when yoke is more than enough and never rapidly cycle any control as it is completely useless and potentially lethal, then differences in breakout force and force gradient between two principally similar systems are really moot point. Now if one wants to malign A300 and perhaps even complete Airbus range, than this difference really must be blown out of all proportions.
Originally Posted by BARKINGMAD
It gives me the chills when I feel it, and I am forced to ask what are the type-rating trainers and the line trainers up to by allowing this crass, clumsy and careless handling?
Up to what is written in manuals and not a bit more. Be gentle to your aeroplane as much as you can so you can be tough to her when things get hairy without fear of breaking anything due to accumulated fatigue? Naaah, not in training manual.
Originally Posted by OK465
Not only was the subject not delicate, but there were some mil airplanes that 'required' aggressive (but smooth) use of rudder in some flight regimes. One of which had been flown extensively in the 80s by many airline captains of the 90s.
Rhino?
Originally Posted by AirRabbit
To me, this is what I think that F/O was doing ... reacting with a skill set and doing so out of panic ... attempting to function without thinking logically or reasoning to any degree and was, instead, functioning out of an overwhelming feeling of anxiety and frantic agitation.
I'm afraid I agree with this one. Seemingly he firmly believed his actions were appropriate without stopping and checking whether they really were.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
I hope this thread ends with this post.
Given the quality of arguments in it, no surprise it turned out to be self-defeating prophecy.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
The real question and problem is why didn't the line pilots know?
Insufficient basic knowledge. One can have long and successful even while being pretty ignorant or even very wrong about some basic aeronautical facts. Pilot who thinks rudder is always used to deal with wake vortex just needs to avoid wake vortices.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
Doing my bit of research, the US government was quite concerned over the role many interested parties had in trying (repeat, trying) to influence the outcome of the NTSB probable cause. Were there attempts to influence? Yes. Did they influence the final report...you decide.
Completely unsubstantiated claim.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
The FAA has in the past known about problems with certain planes in certain conditions and have not passed the information along to the users of the planes. I can remember especially the problem with the F28 Fokker and so called ''hard wing planes''. An accident in Canada showed the problem and it was repeated three years later in the US...oops, the FAA forgot to tell the users.
Complete and utter lie. Slatless aeroplanes have no problems when de-iced properly. Whoever believed this paranoid rant would be severely mislead.
Originally Posted by flarepilot
There has been more than enough hatred on this thread as to ruin the bond we share in the sky
This appeal to emotions sucks at large. I do hate the people who try to pervert the lessons that should be learnt form demise of our colleagues as it increases the risk of the same crash happening again.
Originally Posted by flarepilots
Engineers should think like pilots and make safeguards of every conceivable type to protect pilots from killing people.
Completely unrealistic target. There is a limit in making aeroplanes fool-proof and safeguard under one condition can easily turn out to be lethal under other.
Just ask usual contributors about evils of envelope protection
or if more realistically inclined, read DP Davies treatise on stick pushers.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
The problem is that the force and travel required to activate the rudder to its limits were minimal, and thus it was easy to excite a yaw oscillation by relatively small repetitive rudder inputs.
Makes me wonder if it was so easy, why did the unlucky F/O bother with exerting 140 lbs push?
Sheer panic.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
A recent thread said the B787 is designed to be able to be flown by equally incompetent Airbus pilots because of it's automation.
Misunderstanding, as it is usual on PPRuNe. FBW protection can stop distracted pilot from getting the aeroplane into irrecoverable attitude but that's about it. Many times it was proven that one can stay well clear of protections and still wreck the aeroplane.
Originally Posted by roulishollandais
What we need is a new point of view that does not exist in our regulations of certification concerning RESONANCE
I think you have misspelled "reason" there. Protection form resonance brought about by totally unnecessary and useless control inputs would have fallen afoul of this proposed regulation.