CONF iture, re the THS and connected sidesticks questions, I sense a hamster wheel on the horizon... These have all been done over and over again on the AF447 thread.
Machinbird, I do understand what you mean by PIO, thanks. I've seen a small version of it when hand "flying" the simulator at cruise altitudes in Alternate Law. Certainly, few if any would be able to fly the early transports without the yaw damper! In this, I believe you would be correct regarding PIO!
However, for experienced, well-trained pilots who are accustomed to manual flying transports at high altitudes, it is a non-event in Alternate Law, as I suspect the triple would be. The airplane, (Airbus, but other types are also sensitive), does rock a bit and settles down; there's no lag in flight control response - one freezes the stick, as per Davies' statements, instead of applying inputs and it stops; QED. I'm not military so I haven't experienced what you talk about but I'm very experienced in transports of all types including the narrow-body & widebody Airbus.
I find it difficult to accept that such oscillations in an of themselves, lead to a continued NU pitch command without asking further questions regarding experience, training, background and so on, and the counterexamples (that control columns don't make a difference) are abundant. I'm not saying it can't occur, but CC or SS, stick-shaker or no, the data shows that all types had the control CC or SS buried, NU. I don't think the solution lies in connected sticks or stick shakers so while I remain open to an extended study and the data in the thesis showing PIO as a signficant, primary factor for all crews and not just inexperienced pilots we'll have to agree to disagree.
Last edited by FDMII; 22nd Dec 2015 at 07:27.