Once again, PPRuNe helps me understand why even DECs nowadays have to hop through "Reading comprehension" HR hoops.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Setting aside your presumption that I hadn't read the reference to the TAM incident in the AF447 accident reports
Sorry; I stand corrected. Presumption was based on obvious signs you had no clue about it.
Originally Posted by Chrıs Scott
are you suggesting that a "kid-gloves" approach would have been unsuitable in that case?
No.
Originally Posted by Chrıs Scott
Are you arguing that the extreme control inputs and attitude changes that the BEA describes were necessary and desirable to survive that UAS event?
No.
Originally Posted by Chrıs Scott
If not, just what point are you trying to make that places a "kid-gloves" recommendation into what you contemptuously describe as the "old wives' tales category"?
That talk about "oh-so-sensitive-controls-that-eat-inexperienced-pilots-for-breakfast-when-they-try-to-handfly-at-altitude" is total bollocks. If you haven't read and understood HTBJ, well there is TAM crew that has proven you can throw altn lawed A330 around and not even hurt anyone. Their actions were massively wrong but absolutely not fatal! AF447 was not downed by manual ineptitude but by sustained pitch-up input! CM2 wanted to climb and aeroplane just couldn't comply with demand because of gravity and air density.
However, are you familiar with the concepts of "hands-on experience" and "human nature" ?
Both. PPRuNe constantly reminds me about the second one.
Are you suggesting that a passenger who has never driven a car can take over suddenly and do as good a job as the driver, just because he has watched from the back seat? And in any case, are you suggesting that flight crews should and do spend hours monitoring every small change of attitude made by the AP?
I am suggesting these loaded questions just show popular prejudice of the way modern passenger aeroplanes are flown and have merely slight resemblance to reality.