Originally Posted by Herod
Incredible if true.
Not true. "Диспетчер" literally means "dispatcher" but here actually denotes ATCO so they were talking to ATC, not flight dispatch.
For the time being, I can't find anything on either MAK or Rossaviyatsiya pages resembling what was posted on AvHerald and quoted here. As it runs quite contrary to first official statements, I'd advise "see and wait approach" before making fat assumptions of technical aspects on it.
Originally Posted by Mountain Bear
Duh. That assumes however that the PF is able to recognize the illusion as an illusion in the first instance. If the crew fails to recognize the illusion then for their minds it isn't an illusion at all; they are reacting to reality. The reason is that SGI is deadly is because crews fail to recognize it for what it is.
That's exactly why we teach people about it - so when it hits they are able to believe their instruments more than their senses.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
Care to answer that?
Why the
should I answer that on professional pilots forum?!?!? It's very
easy.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
The question asked by me is related to a few comments on the speed of the initial report, and whether or not ( I asked, since I don't know) it may take a deeper look at subtle cues and signals held in the FDR to find out if a hardover may or may not have been involved.
MAK ıs not your everyday BEA or NTSB or OVV. They know their stuff pretty well and are currently pursuing their goals with ruthless efficiency. Their reports are fast out and to the point, as they should be in the country with dismal safety culture. While unlike their western counterparts they currently waste no time on consultations with any and every party interested in investigation, lack of discussion does not seem to hurt quality of their reports and English translations (when available) are quite good.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
Not all readers here are instrument rated pilots.
That's all very well as long they are readers. It's still well when they come, ask, get the answers and point out what they don't agree with and support it with good quality arguments. Sometimes the outsider view is quite helpful on the road to better understanding but this has too often been used around here as an excuse to promote theories that are utter nonsense.
I'm not particularly happy to see that misunderstanding of the way aeroplanes work combined with the ardent desire to share opinion with the world is not limited to Airbus cases anymore.