AF 447 Thread No. 6
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida and wherever my laptop is
Posts: 1,350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall without THS NU
Originally posted by Ian W
Response from JCJeant
Thank you for this response. My query took this just a little further. Had the THS been at a more normal cruise setting and not fully NU, would the PF been able to hold the nose up during the established stall - with the aircraft dropping at 11,000 fpm (over 100 kts vertical component) - using elevators alone? Or, would the aircraft nose have dropped despite the NU elevators? Surely someone must have calculated this?
Perhaps with elevators alone and a THS neutral the aircraft would have dropped its nose, then (had PF kept NU) after getting flying speed its nose would come back up. Perhaps PF was expecting this nose drop 'nodding' behavior? Its what would happen in a lot of gliders and light aircraft and he was glider qualified. The lack of this nose drop possibly convinced PF that the aircraft could not be in a stall.
Some answers from Troadec (BEA director)
Quote:
Question: there are a lot of airplanes which, when they stall, pitch nose-down including when they have stalled and their last command was to pitch up. This is apparently a phenomenon that many glider or flying school pilots are familiar with. Yet, here we can see that this phenomenon did not occur, that the airplane fell straight while remaining nose-up. Is this a stall mode that is normal or expected?
Jean-Paul Troadec: what was said, is that the airplane stalled from the pilot’s nose-up input. So, mostly the pilot’s inputs were to pitch nose-up, which maintained the stall.
Question: is the way the airplane stalled, that is to say straight while remaining nose-up and not nose-down, is it normal or typical or expected. Let’s say that a lot of airplanes pitch nose-down when they stall.
Jean-Paul Troadec: it’s a point where… Well, I cannot answer your question and say if it is normal or not. It is the situation of this airplane which is perfectly in accordance with the regulations and which was certified.
Quote:
Question: there are a lot of airplanes which, when they stall, pitch nose-down including when they have stalled and their last command was to pitch up. This is apparently a phenomenon that many glider or flying school pilots are familiar with. Yet, here we can see that this phenomenon did not occur, that the airplane fell straight while remaining nose-up. Is this a stall mode that is normal or expected?
Jean-Paul Troadec: what was said, is that the airplane stalled from the pilot’s nose-up input. So, mostly the pilot’s inputs were to pitch nose-up, which maintained the stall.
Question: is the way the airplane stalled, that is to say straight while remaining nose-up and not nose-down, is it normal or typical or expected. Let’s say that a lot of airplanes pitch nose-down when they stall.
Jean-Paul Troadec: it’s a point where… Well, I cannot answer your question and say if it is normal or not. It is the situation of this airplane which is perfectly in accordance with the regulations and which was certified.
Uhm, no, it wasn't in the "locked-in" kind and yes, it's got wings so obviously it can stall...
It's a garden-variety stall, do we need a special name for it?
It's a garden-variety stall, do we need a special name for it?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, OK....
Why are you waiting? It certainly was not a garden variety STALL. Point of fact, it wasn't technically, a STALL, at ALL.
With powerful engines, clean design, and sufficient DRAG, this a/c was essentially performing a "maneuver".
Bouilliard refused to answer the jouno's questions. For once
to the nice lady asking the question, the 64 dollar question. "Why was there no "Recognition of STALL, Monsieur?"."
"Well, that is a proposition for the working group, Madame."
What a PILOT believes, is reality. By extension, it becomes the reality of all aboard.
"As long as I keep the Nose UP, she won't STALL."
In these (447) conditions, he is right, 100%. Not once did the airframe experience the only true symptom of actual STALL that he could have related to. NOSE Plummet. lose your lunch, point at the deck NOSE drop.
At any time down to 4000 feet, I believe she could have recovered, and easily. Why couldn't (didn't) she? The THS prevented it. Also the a/c "Protections". And the belief that the pilots held, at the end, "Tire Tire, TIRE!"
Her forward speed, perhaps all of it, plus a good deal of ballistic energy keeping her aloft (by 'reducing' her RoD) came from the engines. She was airworthy, had a serviceable assiete, good power, and a willing crew.
1. gums knows. Machinbird knows. Smilin Ed knows, and Monsieur Bouilliard knows.
2. We will all know, but it will take time.
The pilots went to Heaven believing she was not STALLED, and that was the reality for all aboard. In fact, again, technically, she was NOT.
The indicated recovery for this "Maneuver"? gently lower the nose, build forward speed, and call for coffee. No "reloading" the wings, No dive, no plummet, no nothing. This may be the first a/c that convinced everyone she Stalled, and did not recover, when instead, she was doing a bit of air combat maneuvering.
OK?
Why are you waiting? It certainly was not a garden variety STALL. Point of fact, it wasn't technically, a STALL, at ALL.
With powerful engines, clean design, and sufficient DRAG, this a/c was essentially performing a "maneuver".
Bouilliard refused to answer the jouno's questions. For once
to the nice lady asking the question, the 64 dollar question. "Why was there no "Recognition of STALL, Monsieur?".""Well, that is a proposition for the working group, Madame."
What a PILOT believes, is reality. By extension, it becomes the reality of all aboard.
"As long as I keep the Nose UP, she won't STALL."
In these (447) conditions, he is right, 100%. Not once did the airframe experience the only true symptom of actual STALL that he could have related to. NOSE Plummet. lose your lunch, point at the deck NOSE drop.
At any time down to 4000 feet, I believe she could have recovered, and easily. Why couldn't (didn't) she? The THS prevented it. Also the a/c "Protections". And the belief that the pilots held, at the end, "Tire Tire, TIRE!"
Her forward speed, perhaps all of it, plus a good deal of ballistic energy keeping her aloft (by 'reducing' her RoD) came from the engines. She was airworthy, had a serviceable assiete, good power, and a willing crew.
1. gums knows. Machinbird knows. Smilin Ed knows, and Monsieur Bouilliard knows.
2. We will all know, but it will take time.
The pilots went to Heaven believing she was not STALLED, and that was the reality for all aboard. In fact, again, technically, she was NOT.
The indicated recovery for this "Maneuver"? gently lower the nose, build forward speed, and call for coffee. No "reloading" the wings, No dive, no plummet, no nothing. This may be the first a/c that convinced everyone she Stalled, and did not recover, when instead, she was doing a bit of air combat maneuvering.
OK?
Last edited by Lyman; 21st Aug 2011 at 22:23.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Ian W
Certainly not the BEA.
Jean-Paul Troadec answer is very clear:
The airplane is certified and meet the certifications requirements .. so .. the plane is so far "perfect" and so .. no modifications (on the THS automatism or behavior) are required (so far ..................... )
Ian W
Thank you for this response. My query took this just a little further. Had the THS been at a more normal cruise setting and not fully NU, would the PF been able to hold the nose up during the established stall - with the aircraft dropping at 11,000 fpm (over 100 kts vertical component) - using elevators alone? Or, would the aircraft nose have dropped despite the NU elevators? Surely someone must have calculated this?
Jean-Paul Troadec answer is very clear:
Jean-Paul Troadec: it’s a point where… Well, I cannot answer your question and say if it is normal or not. It is the situation of this airplane which is perfectly in accordance with the regulations and which was certified.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Nearby SBBR and SDAM
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On failures
3holelover,
IMO Airbus SAS failed: There are some ways to present to the crew an imediate understanding and even ways to keep a/c in Normal Law after UAS (an old and well understood problem due sub heated pitot's). The plane certainly worked as designed wrt to AS. The design could be improved, was not (wrt to UAS) and eventually Murphy Law put all elements together at that night.
IMO the first slice ("swiss cheese") was this Airbus SAS failure. A latent failure. Their a/c are designed to operate for random (time) failure of Pitot tubes and NOT simultaneous (brief) erratic data coming from the redundant sensors. This certainly was consider highly improbable in the design. But the 30+ UAS cases before AF447 should have alerted to a rethinking of the design from the designer/manufacturer. A simple one as we could imagine.
And the patent filing (of an AS laser device, posted earlier) from Airbus SAS was made months AFTER F-GZCP loss.
The importance of AS is considered so high, there are THREE redundant elements supplying this info to the a/c.
IMO just to rely on Pitot's replacement (to another model also prone to "fail"), and operators crew training was insufficient for the company that introduced FBW (and a/c new control philosophy) in commercial aviation.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorin75
Hi Zorin. When you get well away from the initial point of stall, new things come into play. CL now depends on Aspect ratio, thickness ratio and Reynolds number in addition to Alpha. Remember this reference we discussed a few months ago? http://wind.nrel.gov/designcodes/pap...44XX_Part2.pdf
Pitching moment can change. CD continues its increase fairly smoothly. It isn't the same old stall you experienced when you nibbled on the edges of it in training.
I think the deep stall description is warranted. Sixty-one degrees final AOA was closer to Broadside to the wind than to flying.
It's a garden-variety stall, do we need a special name for it?
Pitching moment can change. CD continues its increase fairly smoothly. It isn't the same old stall you experienced when you nibbled on the edges of it in training.
I think the deep stall description is warranted. Sixty-one degrees final AOA was closer to Broadside to the wind than to flying.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is M. J-P.Troder (B.E.A.) comparing training aircraft and gliders, which would normally pitch nose down when they stall, usually with any power off, with an large aircraft (A330) with underslung engines operating at TOGA ?
I assume that Approach to Stall training is not done with high thrust, but I do not know.
I assume that Approach to Stall training is not done with high thrust, but I do not know.
Last edited by Linktrained; 21st Aug 2011 at 22:49.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Most important and most often checked information in "blind flying" is attitude. If one cannot read it properly or cannot maintain it properly, the rest of instrument scan is in vain.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
When pilot is handflying by sole reference to instruments, it is important to keep movement smooth and precise to avoid unnecessary maneuvering that might upset pilot's sense of balance and induce illusions of turning or banking. Pilots who, when without outside visual reference, start flying by their senses instead by their instruments, get far more often killed than not. That is known fact that is with us since there were first instrument flights and no amount of sophistication and automation is able to isolate us from it, as was correctly, in more general terms, predicted by Antoine de Saint-Exupery.
So, as instrument rated pilot, I don't fly by feeling Gs, I fly by reference to my instruments.
So, as instrument rated pilot, I don't fly by feeling Gs, I fly by reference to my instruments.
Understand you're pretty close to perfection when flying instruments, never get tired never misjudge your inputs in order to proceed to an attitude change, so never need to adjust the initial input to get things smoother as they are already.
I am impressed I must say, you desserve my hat off really.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Non, monsieur. You are mistaking the angle of attack and pitch. Pitch is angular difference between aeroplane's longitudinal axis and horizon. Angle of attack. in the most layman's terms, is angular difference between where nose of the aeroplane is pointing and where aeroplane is travelling to through air (velocity vector), measured in aeroplane's vertical plane. So AF447 was traveling at 2.5° cruise AoA and recieved first two stall warning as it was pitching up in turbulence, they were quite short and only transient and stopped promptly. It is also important to understand that stall warning sounds before actual stall takes place. It is certification requirement, purpose of which is for pilots to have enough time to make corrective actions before actual stall takes place.
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Old unreliable airspeed procedure directed pilots to fly 2.5° attitude and power from table. New procedure, valid at time of AF447 final dive, called for setting 5° pitch with climb power for a couple of seconds, while PNF takes out the table of pitch-against-power from QRH and then power and attitude are set accordingly. 2.5° pitch is fine if you know your cruise power by heart. With climb power it would likely result in overspeed.
On my side, to be honnest, it would probably take me a couple of minutes at night in turbulence and my level of stress ... From 350 I figure soon enough I'll reach 4 and 5 degrees of AoA and that bloody stall warning.
As 99% of my cruise flight time N1 are between noon and 1 o'clock, I figure again that could be a reasonable match to the 2.5 degrees attitude.
You mention the "old UAS procedure". I'm not aware of it, neither the BEA ... Would you forward me a copy - Do you know the reason for the change ?
"harsh, snobbish and disrespectful" ?
No, what make you think so, actually it must be a delight flying with such the Professional you are - Some are luckier than others - I do appreciate your patience too - BTW I still expect to graduate next year ...
Originally Posted by jcjeant
With ALTER BSPN so we know that at the request of Airbus, the CEV has made a flight in stall conditions when the A330 was found and test pilots have managed to get out last minute ... that by cutting the two reactors!
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zorin, bear with me.
447 is descending rapidly with a reasonable attitude, if you dislike reasonable, call it consistent, dependable even. Her airspeed is divided about equally into horizontal and vertical components. I don't know if you have flown this, but it is not a freak show. She had power, directional stability, and active elevators. She literally could have slowly recovered cruise flight. The idea would be to arrest the descent, increase forward speed, and get the Nose into the airstream, not in bias to it.
Slowly. When the PF dropped the NOSE, and heard the STALL WARNING, he was averting disaster by pulling UP, not inviting further problems.
Machinbird has just explained it to you. Had I the gift and the experience he has, I could do it. You want to see the Shiite, and won't open your mind even a feeble little crack.
If PF had continued lowering the nose through STALL, and kept it there, the a/c would have been lost immediately.
I think the PF learned alot from the moment he wiped the sleep out his eyes and took command. He didn't quite get that staying on the upside of the horn was the thing to do, just not so much. That STALL WARNING was real, accurate, and told him the truth.
You want someone to say that this "STALL" merely wanted a conventional recovery, and anyone who can't give one is bogus. Listen to Machinbird, or gums, or especially OK465. There are times when a/c don't fly the way they're 'posed to. And won't. If these gents had gone to school with gums, or Mach, they would have recovered the final descent, easies.
But then they wouldn't have had the initial screw up, either.
This is not gibberish. Alas it isn't in the place you want it. You want nuthin' from me, so listen in other places.
all the best, the solution is at hand.
447 is descending rapidly with a reasonable attitude, if you dislike reasonable, call it consistent, dependable even. Her airspeed is divided about equally into horizontal and vertical components. I don't know if you have flown this, but it is not a freak show. She had power, directional stability, and active elevators. She literally could have slowly recovered cruise flight. The idea would be to arrest the descent, increase forward speed, and get the Nose into the airstream, not in bias to it.
Slowly. When the PF dropped the NOSE, and heard the STALL WARNING, he was averting disaster by pulling UP, not inviting further problems.
Machinbird has just explained it to you. Had I the gift and the experience he has, I could do it. You want to see the Shiite, and won't open your mind even a feeble little crack.
If PF had continued lowering the nose through STALL, and kept it there, the a/c would have been lost immediately.
I think the PF learned alot from the moment he wiped the sleep out his eyes and took command. He didn't quite get that staying on the upside of the horn was the thing to do, just not so much. That STALL WARNING was real, accurate, and told him the truth.
You want someone to say that this "STALL" merely wanted a conventional recovery, and anyone who can't give one is bogus. Listen to Machinbird, or gums, or especially OK465. There are times when a/c don't fly the way they're 'posed to. And won't. If these gents had gone to school with gums, or Mach, they would have recovered the final descent, easies.
But then they wouldn't have had the initial screw up, either.
This is not gibberish. Alas it isn't in the place you want it. You want nuthin' from me, so listen in other places.
all the best, the solution is at hand.
"deep" stall versus "deep stall" again
Salute!
I tend to agree with the term "deep" stall versus the other.
Aparently, in the commercial jet community, the term "deep stall" gained popularity with the T-tail design. However, even a "conventional" horizontal stabilizer design can wind up in a very stable stalled condition, as we proved back in 1978 and 79 in that little jet I flew then.
It all depends upon the jet's pitch moment at certain angles of attack. And remember that your pitch moment is affected to a great degree by the THS or HS or whatever you want to call it.
So it is entirely possible that Airbus modeling/wind tunnel runs will find that with a sufficiently rear center of gravity and the THS at the maximum deflection then there is insufficient nose down authority with the elevators.
I DON'T THINK THIS WAS THE CASE WITH AF447
We see glimpses of nose down attitude changes and reduced AoA, then we see continued nose up pitch attitude and continued nose up commands by the pilot.
No doubt in this Viper "has-been" 's mind that the fully deflected THS made the situation tough, but I can't convince myself that recovery was not possible, especially if the stick had been held forward long enough for the "laws" to move the THS to follow the pilot's command.
Lastly, at sufficiently high AoA, the ailerons will cause the nose to move opposite what one would expect and not have a big effect upon actual roll attitude. Ask 'bird, RF4 and Smilin' Ed.
I tend to agree with the term "deep" stall versus the other.
Aparently, in the commercial jet community, the term "deep stall" gained popularity with the T-tail design. However, even a "conventional" horizontal stabilizer design can wind up in a very stable stalled condition, as we proved back in 1978 and 79 in that little jet I flew then.
It all depends upon the jet's pitch moment at certain angles of attack. And remember that your pitch moment is affected to a great degree by the THS or HS or whatever you want to call it.
So it is entirely possible that Airbus modeling/wind tunnel runs will find that with a sufficiently rear center of gravity and the THS at the maximum deflection then there is insufficient nose down authority with the elevators.
I DON'T THINK THIS WAS THE CASE WITH AF447
We see glimpses of nose down attitude changes and reduced AoA, then we see continued nose up pitch attitude and continued nose up commands by the pilot.
No doubt in this Viper "has-been" 's mind that the fully deflected THS made the situation tough, but I can't convince myself that recovery was not possible, especially if the stick had been held forward long enough for the "laws" to move the THS to follow the pilot's command.
Lastly, at sufficiently high AoA, the ailerons will cause the nose to move opposite what one would expect and not have a big effect upon actual roll attitude. Ask 'bird, RF4 and Smilin' Ed.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
CONF iture
If you are not confident (I'm) with the Alter statements in their note of 19/08/2011 .. you can contact them for more details:
ALTER - Accueil
CONF iture
Do we have their source ?
If you are not confident (I'm) with the Alter statements in their note of 19/08/2011 .. you can contact them for more details:
ALTER - Accueil
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite what others have said, the dudes that pulled this thing into a full stall and held it there for almost a full minute should have known what was happening but then when they pushed the SS down and the stall warning sounded again they pulled up again proves they had no clue what they were doing. Automation at it's best is now showing how pilots should really be pilots. Not systems operators.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If PF had continued lowering the nose through STALL, and kept it there, the a/c would have been lost immediately.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman
I have???
Lyman
Lyman (Bearfoil), you are lost in space I'm afraid.
Angle of attack needed to be reduced to flyable. It wasn't. There is no stress that would be applied on the aircraft beyond its design intent by lowering the nose to a good 30 degrees nose down or more to restore flyable angle of attack. To do so required running the trim back down. That was not done with either autotrim or manual trim. Once flyable angle of attack was restored, the remaining problem would have been to pull out smoothly before hitting the surface. Then the emergency would have been largely over.
I have noticed a pattern of attention getting behavior on your part. In a forum such as this, it is annoying. There are serious matters to discuss. To have the discussion pulled this way and that by such childlike behavior interferes with proper communication.
If you are having issues with remaining relevant to society, or if you seek the company of other aviators perhaps you should look at other venues.
In the future, please do not attribute thoughts or ideas to me that I have not originated or do not hold. I do not agree with the ideas of your prior post.
Machinbird has just explained it to you.
Lyman
If PF had continued lowering the nose through STALL, and kept it there, the a/c would have been lost immediately.
Angle of attack needed to be reduced to flyable. It wasn't. There is no stress that would be applied on the aircraft beyond its design intent by lowering the nose to a good 30 degrees nose down or more to restore flyable angle of attack. To do so required running the trim back down. That was not done with either autotrim or manual trim. Once flyable angle of attack was restored, the remaining problem would have been to pull out smoothly before hitting the surface. Then the emergency would have been largely over.
I have noticed a pattern of attention getting behavior on your part. In a forum such as this, it is annoying. There are serious matters to discuss. To have the discussion pulled this way and that by such childlike behavior interferes with proper communication.
If you are having issues with remaining relevant to society, or if you seek the company of other aviators perhaps you should look at other venues.
In the future, please do not attribute thoughts or ideas to me that I have not originated or do not hold. I do not agree with the ideas of your prior post.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lack of this nose drop possibly convinced PF that the aircraft could not be in a stall.
The re-trimming to maintain G as speed bled off due to aft-stick, seems to have played a good part in disguising the true state... one glance at that trim-wheel at that altitude would not have computed
Hi jcjeant,
Your post #271 carries a stunning claim.
It alleges that a test flight at the AF CEV (the AF test flight center) to replicate the AF447 conditions found the aircraft fell locked into a deep stall that the test pilots were able to recover from only by cutting the engines. I tried to get to the full report by following the 'ALTER' link you left, but it appears limited to people with an Air France background.
Is there any possible confirmation of this and do any of the aerodynamic experts here believe this is even plausible?
Your post #271 carries a stunning claim.
It alleges that a test flight at the AF CEV (the AF test flight center) to replicate the AF447 conditions found the aircraft fell locked into a deep stall that the test pilots were able to recover from only by cutting the engines. I tried to get to the full report by following the 'ALTER' link you left, but it appears limited to people with an Air France background.
Is there any possible confirmation of this and do any of the aerodynamic experts here believe this is even plausible?
Last edited by etudiant; 22nd Aug 2011 at 03:46.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Etudiant, I think you read the Alter site correctly. It is asking for a ID number and password.
Even with the AF447 "test flight" paving the way, I would be surprised that anyone would take the risk of a test flight to study deep stall behavior of the A330. I did personally theorize that AF447 must have created a lot of valuable pitching moment data on its way down.
I do not claim to be an aerodynamic expert or a test pilot, however the low slung engines found on most modern transport aircraft would create an adverse pitching moment that would make stall recovery difficult, so pulling engines to idle to recover is not an unexpected maneuver. Once the stall is broken, then power could be advanced.
If they have actually performed a deep stall test, then I would expect information regarding the results to appear in the BEA final report.
Even with the AF447 "test flight" paving the way, I would be surprised that anyone would take the risk of a test flight to study deep stall behavior of the A330. I did personally theorize that AF447 must have created a lot of valuable pitching moment data on its way down.
I do not claim to be an aerodynamic expert or a test pilot, however the low slung engines found on most modern transport aircraft would create an adverse pitching moment that would make stall recovery difficult, so pulling engines to idle to recover is not an unexpected maneuver. Once the stall is broken, then power could be advanced.
If they have actually performed a deep stall test, then I would expect information regarding the results to appear in the BEA final report.
Hi machinbird,
It is also claimed in the ALTER writeup that the AF447 pilots were following the prescribed recovery procedure. The language used indicates an actual flight test was performed.
My only reservation is that the document reads more like a polemic than a sober aviation document, touching on everything from the kickbacks paid on French arms sales in Pakistan to the Habsheim crash. In that event, it notes the pilot had not been made aware that the engines on this aircraft had a much longer response time than what he had been accustomed to. This seems a stretch to me, afaik both the IAE as well as the CFM engines on the A320 take several seconds to spool up, but there may be a difference. If anyone knows the specifics, it would be a simple credibility test.
It is also claimed in the ALTER writeup that the AF447 pilots were following the prescribed recovery procedure. The language used indicates an actual flight test was performed.
My only reservation is that the document reads more like a polemic than a sober aviation document, touching on everything from the kickbacks paid on French arms sales in Pakistan to the Habsheim crash. In that event, it notes the pilot had not been made aware that the engines on this aircraft had a much longer response time than what he had been accustomed to. This seems a stretch to me, afaik both the IAE as well as the CFM engines on the A320 take several seconds to spool up, but there may be a difference. If anyone knows the specifics, it would be a simple credibility test.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
rudderrat, as I read your "upset / stall / recovery" posting I mused a little about the state of mind of the pf. He's above a heck of a storm that was big enough to reach out and "touch" the airplane and cause airspeed indications to fail. After he overreacted and zoom climbed 1500' he found himself in stall warning conditions. He overdid the increase thrust part and under-did the ND part.
I got to wondering if he was deathly afraid of descending into the storm even if it was required for stall recovery. He'd not have to descend all that much to gain back most of his lost airspeed if he reacted sensibly and rapidly. Could the fear of the storm been bouncing around in his head biasing his thinking away from the intuitively insane* ND action?
I can't help thinking, "I really really don't want to go down into that storm," was bouncing around in that poor fellow's head. So, ironically, he descended all the way down through that storm he might have been trying with all his might and soul to avoid.
* Only experienced pilots would recover from "falling" by trying to fall faster. They've been trained that this is the way you get the required airspeed over the wings to give you lift. For real stick and rudder pilots and even military FBW pilots who have hours upon hours of active joysticking behind them this becomes the intuitive response as insane as it seems to a lay person.
I got to wondering if he was deathly afraid of descending into the storm even if it was required for stall recovery. He'd not have to descend all that much to gain back most of his lost airspeed if he reacted sensibly and rapidly. Could the fear of the storm been bouncing around in his head biasing his thinking away from the intuitively insane* ND action?
I can't help thinking, "I really really don't want to go down into that storm," was bouncing around in that poor fellow's head. So, ironically, he descended all the way down through that storm he might have been trying with all his might and soul to avoid.
* Only experienced pilots would recover from "falling" by trying to fall faster. They've been trained that this is the way you get the required airspeed over the wings to give you lift. For real stick and rudder pilots and even military FBW pilots who have hours upon hours of active joysticking behind them this becomes the intuitive response as insane as it seems to a lay person.