Originally Posted by
vilas
Earlier stall recovery procedure was based on approach to stall but after a few accidents in the US where the thrust increase prevented the pilot from lowering the nose FAA asked for a review of the procedure.
I don't doubt it but I would still like to know what these "a few accidents in the US" were. I'd appreciate links to reports. In context of old procedure being inadequate, Goldenrivett and Winnerhofer's suggestions that example was G-THOF incident were slightly off mark as:
Originally Posted by AAIB Bulletin 6/2009
The stall recovery techniques recommended
in the manufacturer’s Flight Crew Training
Manual (FCTM) were not fully applied.
...whatever they were at that unenlightened age.
Originally Posted by
gums
PLZ convince me that the 'bus control law for pitch is primarily programmed for an attitude versus a gee.
For the umpteenth time: it is
not! It holds the flightpath! Not
pitch or
G!
It's the place in manuals where "needs to know" meets "unable to understand". If Aırbus wrote "maintains vertical flightpath" instead of "maintains 1G corrected for pitch up to 33 deg bank", already high number of confused manual readers would increase even more. So why did Airbus made the system that is so difficult to describe? To make it simple to operate! It works just like the conventional controls with nose following control displacement unless you: hit the protection, stall the aeroplane or have your flight controls disabled. I still haven't found a pilot that would have problems learning or unlearning the sidestick.
Originally Posted by
gums
lack of indications that the jet has reached trim l;imits or AoA limits
AoA limits? There is cue on speed display, aural stall warning and strong natural pre-stall buffet.
Originally Posted by
gums
My comment about continuing a climb with stick in "neutral" stands.
If initial flightpath is horizontal, it maintains it with stick neutral. If it was descending, it descends with stick neutral. Your point be?
Originally Posted by
TC-DCA
So by saying " would try to maintain constant vertical flightpath " we can translate it to try to maintain a pitch the aircraft trim back, true ?
No. If speed changes, it will adjust the pitch to maintain flightpath.
Originally Posted by
TC-DCA
I just spoke with an EZY pilot and he told me that there will be normally not a pitch up during a stall in alt. Law and that it´s an requirement of certification by EASA (cs-25) that no abnormal nose up pitching will occur in a stall ?
HTBJ chapter on stick pusher provides enlightenment on how aeroplanes behaving badly were certified way before Airbus.
Originally Posted by
His Dudeness
whilst that is true I don´t see the same thing happening on an airplane with 2 interconnected sticks...when the bloody column hits your stomach, you get the message that the other dude is holding it back...
It might clarify the situation if we introduce into discussion BEA's report on AF447 accident, chapter 1.18.6 where cases of holding interconnected yokes into stall are discussed. Meanwhile, there was another sad case of holding the controls fully up till ground impact in Mali.
Originally Posted by
Sailvi767
It is worth noting that a Delta Crew encountered the same situation as the AF crew in a 330 on a Pacific flight.
It is also worth noting that out of 36 cases of unreliable airspeeds on 330/340 that preceeded AF447 and were listed in interim 2, 6 happened to AF crews. No damage, no injuries.
Originally Posted by
Uplinker
I fly Airbus A330. A lot of what the French captain apparently says is interesting and certainly food for thought - I don't see it as BS, perhaps someone could enlighten me
First, enlightement on BS, from the worlds foremost expert:
Originally Posted by Harry G Frankfurt
It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing
bull**** requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to
the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he
says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly
indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bull****ter,
however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side
of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of
the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away
with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality
correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.
Purpose of that certain French capiten was to portray FBW Airbi as dangerous machines. To this end he picked just what suits his agenda, ending up whit statements that might sound true but are either not complete truth or totally meaningless e.g:
FD's are bars helping the pilot to follow his trajectory.
True but not always, especially not at the edge of the envelope, thence BS.
There is a loss of altitude, however marginal this loss ( 350 to 350 ft ) this point is crucial in the understanding of the sequence of events as it explains the crew first move is to pitch up in order to regain the lost altitude (BEA p.179)
It might explain initial climb but not why then the level was severely busted or why climb even after PNF prompts to go down, thence BS.
Joysticks only function is to send inputs to the computer management system which either accepts them or rejects them
True, but worthless without explanation for rejection or that rejections happen very, very seldom or that pitot clogging in AF447 case disabled 'rejectıon' and so FCS tried to deliver pılot's command, thence BS.
(Hence the motto that airbuses cannot stall)
Delivered by who? Weasel words. BS.
45'' after the alarms rang, there have been alternate actions to pitch up and down by the crew
True, but overall pıtch-up actions were of larger displacement and longer duration, omitting this is BS.
Need more?
Originally Posted by
Derfred
If Airbus pilots are not trained to regard the aircraft's attitude indicator as their primary instrument, then we have a problem.
There is no other way to fly Airbus. Problem is not that simple, has nothing to do with Airbus and was far better understood by Langewiesche
père than
fils.
Originally Posted by karnc
When the Bus is messed up, your conventional pilot skill can't help much because when you pull the stick, the plane may not respond by raising up the pitch.
DF Wrong! When it is messed up, it won't stop you from nominating yourself for Darwin Award.
Originally Posted by karnc
I am a sim instructor
Arguments from authority are worthless on anonymous fora.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Fly-by-wire is something like CWS, (Control Wheel Steering) in a Boeing, (but for very different reasons!).
Slight difference being CWS is attitude hold, Airbus is flightpath hold.
Originally Posted by Microburst2002
DIRECT LAW handling characteristics are NOT like a conventional airplane's, no matter what Airbus claims.
I had the pleasure of trying it only in the sim, for about 5-6 hours hands on time and I partially agree; it's not like ATR-42 or Q400; A320 in direct law is far nicer and easier to fly.
Originally Posted by Mıcroburst2002
Sidesticks give no clue of airspeed, like conventional airplane yokes do
Uh-huh. So, the crew of G-THOF got the message from their yokes they are flying too fast? Hey, artificial feeling was pushing hard against their hands, providing tons of feedback.
Originally Posted by Microburst2002
DIRECT law is a very degraded control law (not at all like a reversion to conventional control system). You could never certify an airplane with such system.
FAA disagrees. Maybe your congressman can do something about it?