As the previous thread has gotten long Part 6 has been created to continue the conversation.

The previous thread can be found here Air Asia QZ8501 SUB To SIN Crash - Part 5 (by Miami Dec 30 2014 in Civil Aviation) .

Regards,
Pat

On Dec 31st 2014 the chairman of Indonesia's Search and Rescue Service stated in an evening press conference, that earlier reports about the fuselage having been located have been incorrect, the search is still ongoing, so far - referring to a report by CNN hitting global headlines - there are no sonar images of the fuselage as well. Correcting other media reports the chairman stressed that none of the bodies recovered so far was wearing a life vest. All valid information concerning QZ-8501 only and only comes from one source, namely the Search and Rescue Service which is currently in charge of the entire operation, the chairman stated with reference to the current information chaos.

Avherald

Quoting heyjoojoo: How long would that particular model jet stay afloat?

A lot depends on aircraft damage ... and there isn't much data to base anything on.

Far as I know, the only A-320 that anyone's tried to float for a while was US 1549.

1549 hit the water at 3:31 pm, with most people being rescued within half an hour or so.

By that time, the fuselage was almost completely submerged.

And, realize ... this was an almost perfect scenario on almost perfectly flat water.

QZ8501 was over very rough seas.

Very likely, any attempted ditching would have resulted in aircraft breakup, which would have sunk very quickly.

Bill Palmer, an A330 pilot in the US, writing on CNN.com about what's similar, and what isn't, between QZ8501 and AF447

http://www.cnn.com/2014/12/31/opinio...nce-disasters/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

How long after the CVR and FDR from QZ-8501 are recovered, do you think it will be before we hear what's on the tapes. I'm guessing 48 hours no more then 72 hours.

That shows you what a conspiracy has to be going on were MH-17 is concerned.

We saw the separatist turn the MH-17 "black boxes" over on TV to the British and OSCE people, some time in July. Five months later not one word on the airways from the tapes. In my world when I add up the facts it screams CONSPIRACY, COVER-UP, WAR CRIME!!!

Quoting bigz (Reply 4): In my world when I add up the facts it screams CONSPIRACY, COVER-UP, WAR CRIME!!!

You should read Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation, which sets out the procedures and timelines for accident investigations - and then take a valium. The wreckage of MH17 only arrived in the Netherlands last week.

I can,t seem to find any information of events or incidents of Boeing, Douglas, Lookheed' or any US build commercial aircrafts entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms .

Now the SAR team says there is no sonar, or main wreckage site found. Ughhh! I guess it is safe to say that we can't rely on these media reports. This is so frustrating. I hope the families aren't being told half of the false reports we are seeing.

LTC8K6

I understand why the autopilot disconnects, but in today's modern age the aircraft should be able to be programmed to work off of gps data when one of the inertial systems becomes unreliable. The pilots of AF 3575 stated they suffered sensory illusions and had a hard time reading anything, is that any better, is it any better to have a young first officer pulling back on the stick for 2 minutes?

Do most modern aircraft not have an absolute electronic GPS system that does not rely on any inertial data, acclerometers or air entering a tube?

I find it hard to believe in 2015 we can't program a gps autopilot when conventional methods fail.
An upward altitude deviation could be detected quickly and compensated for automatically regardless of what the heck gyros and pitot tubes are doing.

Also, I'm tired of the tired argument that pilots are too busy to radio to ATC to make them aware of what is going on. It's just one button close to where your fingers are placed anyway, then talk, you are already on the frequency. I think pilots pride gets in the way of communicating an immedeate emergency to ATC. The frame of mind is. I'm a pilot with tons of hours and I can't let anyone know I'm in trouble especially if I failed in my duties (in this case monitoring airspeed, possibly), plus I can't let anyone think I don't have the situation under control. I'll pull out of it, I'll be fine. It's also a bit of shock and at some point it becomes resignation when they realize they dont have the situation under control. Same with the commanders/pilots of any large vessel. I'm not saying all or most pilots, but during my time in the AF and even now as an civillian engineer still working for the Air Force. I met many pilots with a scary mentality of don't ever tell anyone if you make a mistake. And if you make a mistake cover it up and lie about what really happened. They used to tell eachother make sure whatever the issue is that it dosen't go out over the radios. These guys then go on to civillian airlines.

We once had a pilot accidently hit the emergency jettison (A10A) on taxi, instead of telling us he hit the ej reaching for his bag, he had maintenance techs chasing wires for hours and had an aircraft impounded for months becuase he could never admit he did something wrong. The airmen at End of runway were lambasted for sugggesting the pilot hit the ej, even though several people heard the pop at the same time the pilot reached for the flight bag lodged between the hud and the canopy on the left side. We also had tons of unreported tail strikes, over-gs, hard landings, all swept under the rug by the pilots flying. The over-gs are dangerous and the pilots never told anyone about them. Because over g-ing a jet is something they undisputedly had control over.

I know in many parts of the world elite and poor Air Force pilots alike are hired to fly for civillian airlines. Some take their faultless zipper suited sun god mentality with them.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): I find it hard to believe in 2015 we can't program a gps autopilot when conventional methods fail.

You can't get airspeed (which is what keeps a plane in the air) from a GPS.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): An upward altitude deviation could be detected quickly and compensated for automatically regardless of what the heck gyros and pitot tubes are doing.

do you know anything about the physics of flying?
What keeps a plane in the air,e.g.?

and I do have my doubt's about the preciseness of GPS concerning height.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): Do most modern aircraft not have an absolute electronic GPS system that does not rely on any inertial data, acclerometers or air entering a tube?

No, a GPS cannot give all of the information required to fly an airliner safely.

Unless your only problem is that you are lost...

[Edited 2014-12-31 12:48:05]

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): I find it hard to believe in 2015 we can't program a gps autopilot when conventional methods fail. An upward altitude deviation could be detected quickly and compensated for automatically regardless of what the heck gyros and pitot tubes are doing.

GPS won't detect a stall.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): It's just one button close to where your fingers are placed anyway, then talk, you are already on the frequency. I think pilots pride gets in the way of communicating an immedeate emergency to ATC.

I heard a story where someone asked a military test pilot why he always sounded so cool in an emergency. He said that he counted out loud 1-10 and only then pushed the button to talk. If he didn't make it to 10 he didn't want to be talking to anyone anyway.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): I met many pilots with a scary mentality of don't ever tell anyone if you make a mistake. And if you make a mistake cover it up and lie about what really happened. They used to tell eachother make sure whatever the issue is that it dosen't go out over the radios. These guys then go on to civillian airlines.

So your point is don't hire ex-military pilots?

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): Also, I'm tired of the tired argument that pilots are too busy to radio to ATC to make them aware of what is going on. It's just one button close to where your fingers are placed anyway, then talk, you are already on the frequency. I think pilots pride gets in the way of communicating an immedeate emergency to ATC.

Again, ATC really can't do anything for you.

It is totally useless to talk to ATC during an emergency.

Better to devote your limited attention resources to flying the plane, that way you can survive to tell the controller what happened.

There is a possibility that the crew attempted a mayday call. However, who knows what the condition of the aircraft was. Perhaps a power failure? Like many have said, the 2 up front had so many things happening, they were too busy trying to save the plane. Let's wait for the CVR and FDR to answer most of these questions.

Quoting bigz (Reply 4): How long after the CVR and FDR from QZ-8501 are recovered, do you think it will be before we hear what's on the tapes. I'm guessing 48 hours no more then 72 hours. That shows you what a conspiracy has to be going on were MH-17 is concerned. We saw the separatist turn the MH-17 "black boxes" over on TV to the British and OSCE people, some time in July. Five months later not one word on the airways from the tapes. In my world when I add up the facts it screams CONSPIRACY, COVER-UP, WAR CRIME!!!

What? Those have to be the least important black boxes of all time. Conspiracy? It is crystal clear exactly what occurred.

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): LTC8K6 I understand why the autopilot disconnects, but in today's modern age the aircraft should be able to be programmed to work off of gps data when one of the inertial systems becomes unreliable. The pilots of AF 3575 stated they suffered sensory illusions and had a hard time reading anything, is that any better, is it any better to have a young first officer pulling back on the stick for 2 minutes?

The plane may be at the same location (coordinates) but inverted, would GPS tell you that?

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 6): I can,t seem to find any information of events or incidents of Boeing, Douglas, Lookheed' or any US build commercial aircrafts entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms .

Thanks for doing all that valuable research on behalf of everyone here.
Moving on...

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 15): That shows you what a conspiracy has to be going on were MH-17 is concerned.

Conspiracy theorists drive me nuts!

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 15): In my world...

A place I never want to encounter!

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 6): can,t seem to find any information of events or incidents of Boeing, Douglas, Lookheed' or any US build commercial aircrafts entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms

Quoting anfromme (Reply 17): Thanks for doing all that valuable research on behalf of everyone here. Moving on...

     

Two (707 & 720) during 1963 and it took me less than 30 seconds to find it.

Quoting litz (Reply 2): Bill Palmer, an A330 pilot in the US, writing on CNN.com about what's similar, and what isn't, between QZ8501 and AF447

Here is the AD referenced in the article:
http://cdn1.atp.com/ADs/pdf/142551e.pdf

Quoting FRAIAD (Reply 18):

You quoted a quote. I think jpetekyxmd80 actually agrees with you pretty much.

Quoting anfromme (Reply 17): Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 6): I can,t seem to find any information of events or incidents of Boeing, Douglas, Lookheed' or any US build commercial aircrafts entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms . Thanks for doing all that valuable research on behalf of everyone here. Moving on...

I think everyone should consider Northwest flight 705, a Boeing 720, which was skirting thunderstorms after takeoff from MIA in February 1963. The flight's rate of climb reached as much as 9,000 fpm, and the aircraft was subjected to vertical accelerations from 1G to - 2.8G during portions of the turbulence. The aircraft broke up during the dive into the Everglades. All four engines separated, and the vertical stabilizer failed.

According to Wiki:
"The final report on the crash determined the cause of the accident to be the unfavourable interaction of severe vertical air drafts and large longitudinal control displacements, resulting in a longitudinal upset from which a successful recovery was not made.":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Airlines_Flight_705

From previous thread:

Quoting lnglive1011yyz (Reply 231): I think the problem with the idea that I'm suggesting is that the Professionals here are making an assumption that the plane will be able to be saved. I'm specifically talking about instances where it's VERY unlikely that the aircraft is able to be saved.

I would think that it is better that the pilots do everything, up to the last few feet, to try and save the plane. To just give up and let the plane crash doesn't seem like the correct thing for me. I doubt pilots really know there is nothing they can do until the very end when there is only seconds left in any case.

Quoting enzo011 (Reply 23): I would think that it is better that the pilots do everything, up to the last few feet, to try and save the plane. To just give up and let the plane crash doesn't seem like the correct thing for me. I doubt pilots really know there is nothing they can do until the very end when there is only seconds left in any case.

As my old fighter jock friends say, you "fly till the last piece stops moving!"

Data to satellite transmission: likely a done deal, that is it will be done. There are some odd reason advanced as to why it shouldn't, I will avoid speculation.

I will note that in my neck of the woods (literally woods), we have had two small commercial twin engine piston planes go down in a pass. In neither case did the emergency beacon survive. And were it not for hunters hearing those planes go down it might have taken weeks or months to find them.

ps - the cost of satellite alerts is low enough that small recreational boaters are not carrying them, and the USCG Aux. is modestly pushing them.

[Edited 2014-12-31 13:59:56]

Quoting savethequads (Reply 8): Also, I'm tired of the tired argument that pilots are too busy to radio to ATC to make them aware of what is going on. It's just one button close to where your fingers are placed anyway, then talk, you are already on the frequency. I think pilots pride gets in the way of communicating an immedeate emergency to ATC. The frame of mind is. I'm a pilot with tons of hours and I can't let anyone know I'm in trouble especially if I failed in my duties (in this case monitoring airspeed, possibly), plus I can't let anyone think I don't have the situation under control.

Sorry, I missed the part of your diatribe where you explain how contacting ATC saves the airplane. Can you clarify?

As for any idea that communicating like this would only take a short time, that's really not true when seconds matter. ATC will start asking for information that's important to THEM, but still has absolutely nothing to do with preventing the actual crash ("how many souls on board"--as if that's relevant in any way--"well, it's only 105, not 260 people, so we'll take it easy" and "how much fuel"--again, pretty irrelevant if the issue is "I'm trying to not crash into the ocean RIGHT NOW" vs "Hey, divert me to a nearby airport").

Either the pilot needs every bit of focus on flying the airplane or it happens so fast and catastrophically, no communication would have been possible anyway.

The other big problem I have with all this clamoring "My car can call 911, why can't my plane!" nonsense is, as others have noted: If your car flew off a cliff and crashed 300 feet below, it's not calling 911. Sync's terms and conditions explicitly indicate that vehicle power needs to be available and the system is not available in all situations. (For one, Sync uses your own cell phone to make the call, so if your phone is smashed in the crashed, you're SOL. OnStar uses on-board cellular communication, but if the transmitter is smashed, again...SOL). So how, exactly, would you build a system that would have six sigma reliability and survivability to communicate after a crash? Since so many seem to have the answers, a "well, I dunno, I'm no engineer, but it should be able to be done!" response doesn't work.

[Edited 2014-12-31 14:21:12]

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 22):

So if I ready you correctly, the last time a U.S. made aircraft suffered such an event was in 1963. Just around the infancy of commercial aircrafts high altitude flying around Thunder Storms?

Quoting litz (Reply 2): Very likely, any attempted ditching would have resulted in aircraft breakup, which would have sunk very quickly.

Not attacking - just addressing where your thought takes me:

But what of the few who may make it out in an attempted ditching that turns into a crash and fuselage breakup, when the pilot barely pulled out and had no time for the radio? A Sully with a bad landing? Aviate, Navigate, Communicate, right? Pihero mentioned on the last thread that a ditching was a very low-percntage possibility because the ELT beacon would be triggered and the purser would also trigger locators. What if the purser dies and the ELT gets busted in the ditch/crash and no one knows how to trigger the locator on the raft? What if your family member by the grace of God makes it out of a shattered aircraft - or is ejected in a magic arc, like some of the UA 232 survivors - and starts trying to stay afloat, along with a handful of others? Is three days acceptable?

What if Air Asia does end up being a ditch/crash (and I'm not saying that it was - just addressing the larger issue)? Should there be any aggressive effort to provide instant location where the plane hit the water, to provide a last chance to survivors, or do they become financially acceptable collateral damage, a la the Ford Pinto or the USS Indianapolis? The story of the sinking of the USS Indianapolis in WWII and the fact that a majority of the crew made it off the ship but - due to the long delay in rescue - a majority was eaten by sharks or drowned, would seem to cover a similar moral quandary. A college friend of mine's dad grew up without a father because of the Indianapolis tragedy.

It's just my own opinion, of course, and I do not think that industry folks are heartless or callous. But I think that the airline industry does have a responsibility to get help to potential survivors as quickly as humanly possible, and I don't feel like it's being well done. Is this the best that we humans can do?

So the plane crashed
It has now been found
Gosh darn it, can we wait for the information from the black boxes and official write up on the cause, and not have another 1,000 pages of tiresome mundane regurgitated posts as we did with the missing MH aircraft...

Quoting CF-CPI (Reply 22): I think everyone should consider Northwest flight 705, a Boeing 720, which was skirting thunderstorms after takeoff from MIA in February 1963. The flight's rate of climb reached as much as 9,000 fpm, and the aircraft was subjected to vertical accelerations from 1G to - 2.8G during portions of the turbulence. The aircraft broke up during the dive into the Everglades. All four engines separated, and the vertical stabilizer failed.

To clarify, while weather was a contributing factor, the over controlling of the plane on the part of the PF was what in the end caused the structural failure. The plane would have been fine if the pilot had not performed maneuvers that exceeded the aircraft design.

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 27): So if I ready you correctly, the last time a U.S. made aircraft suffered such an event was in 1963. Just around the infancy of commercial aircrafts high altitude flying around Thunder Storms?

Not necessarily. Looks like they're saying that an incident of the kind you described happened in 1963. A bit more digging would be required to see if there are any more recent. Off the top of my head, DL191 may fit your bill of "unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms." Perhaps these two as well:

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19971010-0
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20061029-0

It must also be said that, as AR385 pointed out regarding Northwest 705, actions by the flight crew worsened the problems. With all of that in mind, it's likely that a chain of events contributed to the loss of this airliner, and not just the fact that there were thunderstorms in the vicinity.

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 27): So if I ready you correctly, the last time a U.S. made aircraft suffered such an event was in 1963. Just around the infancy of commercial aircrafts high altitude flying around Thunder Storms?

Here's another Boeing struck by lightning and destroyed in 1976 -

http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19760509-0

Non- U.S. jetliners lost in thunderstorms:

Braniff 1-11, 1966

NLM City Hopper F-28, 1981

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 27): So if I ready you correctly, the last time a U.S. made aircraft suffered such an event was in 1963. Just around the infancy of commercial aircrafts high altitude flying around Thunder Storms?

This accident is the first that came to mind, though Braniff flight 250 is another one (see the end of this post). It certainly bears some similarities to what we know about Air Asia.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 30): To clarify, while weather was a contributing factor, the over controlling of the plane on the part of the PF was what in the end caused the structural failure.

It appears that control inputs made during an attempted recovery at 10,000 ft. (in response to the turbulence) were the deciding factor in the case of Northwest:
http://www.pilotfriend.com/disasters/crash/northwest705.htm

Braniff Flight 250 was another one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braniff_Flight_250

"The 1-11 violently accelerated upward and in a left roll. At this time the right tailplane and the fin failed"
There is no mention here of control inputs (one way or the other).

BOAC Mt Fuji is another to consider:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAC_Flight_911

In this case, it appears to have been severe winds which initiated inflight breakup, generated by Mt. Fuji, not by thunderstorms:
The probable cause determination was: "The aircraft suddenly encountered abnormally severe turbulence over Gotemba City which imposed a gust load considerably in excess of the design limit."
This report attributes the breakup to gusts exceeding the design limit, but there is no word on pilot inputs. As I mentioned, this was not weather either.

Conspiracy is relative.

None of us has any more information than the next person can find via the Internet, CNN, FNC, reddit, online forums, wiki-crap, friends in airline industry, pilots, aviation experts, etc....

We can easily deduce what we believe is the answer to all of our questions.But none of our questions are the same, thereby allowing us all to arrive at many conclusions.

There is a ton of information out there. We will eventually know the truth or we may be fed a bunch of plausible but misleading information. For neither would be the first time.

Has AirAsia retired the flight # QZ8501 or are they still using that?

More on Northwest. This is a decent animation. Push Play as directed and wait some seconds for it to start:
http://lessonslearned.faa.gov/Northw...5/Northwest705_accident_pop_up.htm

Quoting maxpower1954 (Reply 32): Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 27): So if I ready you correctly, the last time a U.S. made aircraft suffered such an event was in 1963. Just around the infancy of commercial aircrafts high altitude flying around Thunder Storms? Here's another Boeing struck by lightning and destroyed in 1976 - http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19760509-0 Non- U.S. jetliners lost in thunderstorms: Braniff 1-11, 1966 NLM City Hopper F-28, 1981

I think airspeed772s trolling didn't get the response he was looking for. To suggest that non-US airliners are inherently more dangerous seems a long shot even for the more ham -fisted A vs B poster-boys.

Southern Flight 242 would also be thunderstorm related, albeit not control related

Quoting airspeed772 (Reply 6): I can,t seem to find any information of events or incidents of Boeing, Douglas, Lookheed' or any US build commercial aircrafts entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Air_Flight_574

There you go, even in the very same area. Do your research better next time.

Sully Sullenberger on CNN today: Very few airline pilots have stalled a (modern) airliner. He did, in Tolouse with a heavily instrumented A/C with a test pilot in the left seat. The implication left was that yes, you can recover a stalled airliner.

Sully, at what altitude did you perform the stall? Probably 18,000 ft at most! Did you try it in the mid-30s? Or have you ever tried recovering an airliner from an upset maneuver?

And to push the point, I would ask him if the CG of the test airplane was close to the forward limit or at a more operational location?

Quoting hb88 (Reply 37): I think airspeed772s trolling didn't get the response he was looking for. To suggest that non-US airliners are inherently more dangerous seems a long shot even for the more ham -fisted A vs B poster-boys.

Oh I hope we don't go that route.

I suspect that severe turbulence played a significant part in this event. Whether cockpit inputs were the deciding factor remains to be seen.

Quoting aerodog (Reply 40): Sully Sullenberger on CNN today: Very few airline pilots have stalled a (modern) airliner. He did, in Tolouse with a heavily instrumented A/C with a test pilot in the left seat. The implication left was that yes, you can recover a stalled airliner. Sully, at what altitude did you perform the stall? Probably 18,000 ft at most! Did you try it in the mid-30s? Or have you ever tried recovering an airliner from an upset maneuver?

There is YouTube footage of the A350 doing stall tests as well as Bruce Dickinson doing the same in an A320. It all looked frankly pretty mild to me. I'm not sure (apart from cost/custom) why commercial pilots wouldn't do stalls as part of training at least in a sim. I don't presume to speak for the heavies but proper piloting when I learnt to fly meant knowing how the aircraft behaved approaching a stall, in a stall and the recovery.

I'm having drinks later with some 777 crew. I'll ask.

Quoting hb88 (Reply 42): 'm not sure (apart from cost/custom) why commercial pilots wouldn't do stalls as part of training at least in a sim.

I am almost positive all airline pilots have done stalls in the SIM.

32andbelow

Don't confuse full aerodynamic stall with pusher/shaker activation.

Quoting 32andBelow (Reply 43): I am almost positive all airline pilots have done stalls in the SIM.

Approach to stalls and appropriate recovery are done on a regular basis. I'm not sure the simulators have the required aero data installed to properly model a full stall. May have had a demo once but wasn't part of the required recurrent training

Quoting hb88 (Reply 42): I'm not sure (apart from cost/custom) why commercial pilots wouldn't do stalls as part of training at least in a sim

Full stalls are only done (on purpose) in appropriately instrumented airplanes do to loading issues relative to the tail.

Quoting aerodog (Reply 44): 32andbelow Don't confuse full aerodynamic stall with pusher/shaker activation.

Good point. I don't see any reason though why even a fully developed stall in a modern jet a/c would be such a daring thing. My own aircraft is known for having fairly crummy stalling characteristics (a tendency to drop a wing, er, somewhat "sharply"). So it's an important part of flight training and proficiency to frequently do stalls and be able to sit in a stable stalled descent with the stick right at the back stops carefully keeping the wings level. In a modern a/c this should be similar but you'd need a lot more height to recover.

As for a stick-shaker, the only thing usually shaking is me  

In response to our newest assertions-without-facts serial commenter (no quote in case his post gets deleted)

Since there have already been numerous examples posted of Boeings "entering into unrecovered unusual attitudes while flying in the vicinity or thunder storms" (and there are others, like KQ507) here are a couple from the other companies mentioned:

Lockheed (which only ever made one jet airliner): DL191 (microburst on landing at DFW).

Douglas: Southern 242 (DC-9); US 1016 (DC-9, windshear on approach); Air Algerie 5017 (likely; investigation not complete, MD83).

That's without even looking at the DC-8 and from 10 minutes of research.

[Edited 2014-12-31 16:48:38]

Quoting IADCA (Reply 47):

ET 409, a 738, may belong to that group too.

Quoting hb88 (Reply 46): I don't see any reason though why even a fully developed stall in a modern jet a/c would be such a daring thing.

My understanding is that at high altitude it's pretty daring.

I have a question regarding the AD I linked to in reply 20. On certain AB aircraft including the A320, should the AoA vanes freeze up and if conditions are right the flight control system can go into Alpha Prot mode and command pitch down rates which, in "worst case" situations cannot be overridden by the pilot even with the stick pulled full back (by design for AB flight control system philosophy). The recovery described in the AD calls for 2 ADRs to be turned off and 1 left on. This apparently disables Alpha Prot. My question is what happens if the stick is in the full back position when Alpha Prot is disabled? Does the flight control system handle it gracefully? Or will there be immediate, possibly extreme, nose-up pitch rates commanded until the pilot eases up on the stick?

[Edited 2014-12-31 16:56:52]