|Quoting enilria (Reply 117):|
Quoting wjcandee (Reply 110):
Here, it's the Wild West
I changed it to, "In this case" to make the meaning more clear for those who might not have understood the meaning of "here". Hope that clarifies things. The point I made, obviously, is legitimate.
By the way, I just read this from the AP, quoting the Airline's director-of-something:
"Smirnov said the plane dropped 300 kph (186 mph) in speed and 1.5 kilometers (about 5,000 feet) in altitude one minute before it crashed Saturday." and
"Smirnov described the A321-200 as a reliable aircraft that would not fall into a spin even if the pilots made a grave error because its automatic systems would correct crew mistakes."
The first is interesting because it could denote something as simple as an engine malfunction (which was then mismanaged by the crew).
The second statement is bewildering in its cluelessness. We all know that autopilots disconnect when they become unable still to control the aircraft, and that knowledgeable human intervention is required. It's a classic symptom of automation complacency. Of course, this guy wasn't flying the plane. But, geez.
Another viable accident sequence therefore is: engine issues, not responded to properly by crew, autopilot attempts to maintain altitude/speed/whatever until it can no longer do so, and then says, "Your airplane, guys." Upon disconnecting, causes an upset that crew doesn't respond to properly. Corkscrew and crash. Damage to stabs, etc., reminiscent of China Airlines 6.
By the way, the common impression of China Airlines 6 is that, unbenknownst to the crew, the number 4 engine quit and the crew didn't notice it, while the autopilot maintained control until it couldn't and then disconnected, causing a loss of control that the captain finally overcame. It's worth reading the Wikipedia summary of what actually happned: the 15,000-hours-plus captain and FE knew immediately of the engine problem (it had flamed out twice before on earlier flights), and then didn't use a checklist on the restart procedure; the CPT instead just told the FE to restart it while leaving the autopilot on at FL410 (checklist required descent to FL300 before any restart attempt). It didn't relight, and nobody noticed that the autopilot was running the control wheel full left. Captain NEVER put in rudder to try to bring wings level. Nobody recognized the crazy attitude the plane was at, because of clouds. When they saw the attitude indicators, they assumed they were all malfunctioning -- bizarre. Only once they descended, out of control, below the cloud layer -- i.e. only when they had an actual horizon -- did they start properly to right the aircraft. God bless the 747, it didn't come apart before their efforts or as a result of their efforts despite going beyond 60-degrees and 5gs. Even then, the crew was going to just proceed to LAX and land there, whether for CYA reasons or just because they didn't appreciate initially the magnitude of what had just happened. In that incident, the rear part of the aircraft looked like swiss cheese.
Not that this is what happened, but it's another viable theory that indicates that we don't know anything until an actual authority releases meaningful information from the DFDR and CVR.
[Edited 2015-11-02 14:13:52]