|Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 10):|
You do not know what you would do faced with an emergency situation. Often you are not thinking logically.
True...yet, in the modern age where the planes fly themselves from 200 ft off of the runway until stopping at the other end, the job of the pilot is exactly to know what to do in an emergency situation.
|Quoting B747400ERF (Reply 23):|
Not handling? I said sometimes experienced pilots will make the wrong decisions during an emergency situation, no matter how much total time and training they have.
Again, which means they failed at the precise reason they are in the cockpit in the first place; the very rare chance than an emergency will take place that the aircraft can't handle on its own.
|Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 26):|
How do you put an aircraft that is stalled with a developed bank in a glide?
Level the wings, forward stick is probably part of it.
|Quoting airtechy (Reply 28):|
Actually, a steep bank should have hastened the entry into a nose down attitude...if there was no up pilot command.
A steep bank can also turn into a spiral dive in a heartbeat....or a spin...or from one to the other.
|Quoting Amiga500 (Reply 38):|
It is not inappropriate to use the rudder if it performs the most important action of all - reducing your AoA.
That would only be as a last resort if pitch inputs couldn't do the job.
|Quoting 76er (Reply 48):|
For the Airbus bashers, let's not forget the TK crash at AMS (A/T system failure induced crew error) and OZ at SFO (who fell into the infamous Flight Level Change trap). The latest being a design flaw imho.
This accident was an aircrew problem, not a sidestick problem. Whether or not linked sticks might have made a difference is a debate I don't want to wade into but what the pilots should have been doing is clearly communicating. They should have known who was in command by talking and clearly designating a pilot flying and the other pilot should get his mitts off of the stick.
|Quoting MMO (Reply 52):|
Since you are not a pilot, do you know how a full aft stick stall differs from a normal stall? Do you know what to look for?
In a jet, there are stick shakers, right? So while the airframe buffeting might not be obvious, the stick shaking should be, as should the warnings. Regardless, any main wing stall will be as a result of a too high angle of attack and the indications will be displayed on the attitude indicator, airspeed indicator, stick shaker, altimeter, rate of climb indicator, angle of attack indicator....and at least part of the solution is always to pitch down.
|Quoting MMO (Reply 52):|
I didn't think so. Believe me do some research and them come back on here and voice your opinion! But to everyone else on here a full aft stick stall, on a swept wing aircraft is characterized by the lack of buffett, a very high descent rate (in excess of 6000 fpm) and possible wing rocking, although the wings can remain lever. Compare that with a normal stall which has buffetting and the loss of ailerons proceeds from the wing tip towards the wing root (swept wing aircraft). Until you have seen one or been in one you wouldn't know until it bit you in the ass!
There are plenty of stall indicators in modern jets...the the differences in how swept wing jets stall as compared to straight wing props is moot in this case, since these pilots were allegedly trained on how to recognize and recover from stalls in the aircraft they were flying.
Whatever kind of plane you're flying, recovery from a stall always requires a nose down action.
|Quoting zeke (Reply 55):|
Initially they looks like they were in a steep turn, that developed into a spiral dive with control inputs. Being at a high angle of bank, if you retain the bank (no additional control input) and let the nose drop below the horizon airflow will develop quicker over wings (dramatic angel of attach change) to unstall the aircraft before rolling wings level. Common recovery technique on a lawn dart.
Unfortunately, they continued to pull back on the stick which, if in a spiral dive, will result in an accelerated stall and very likely a spin. It looks like to me that they were in an incipient spin, and recovered wings level. That's when they should have used nose down pitch, (and whatever power techniques are prescribed...I'm assuming low power settings until flying speed is recovered),
|Quoting Chaostheory (Reply 57):|
My first type was a BAE prop where the stall recovery procedure included the use of full engine power. The manual said something along the lines of propwash improving airflow over the wing and thus a potential aid in recovery. Those guidelines are at odds with the recovery procedure in most jets. Have a look at A300/A310 stall events and the 737 stall into BOH to see what happens when you apply TOGA at stall.
My prop experience is pitch down and power off until the nose is below the horizon, recover flying speed, smoothly start to pull up, when nose is at the horizon, add power and recover altitude.
|Quoting hivue (Reply 83):|
Plus (a) there are not supposed to be two pilots controlling the airplane at the same time and (b) flight controls are not flight instrumentation so why engineer them to pretend like they are.
That's what CRM is for. No matter what the control configuration, pilots working at crossed purposes will always be able to defeat perfectly thought out controls.
|Quoting zeke (Reply 85):|
Many people use Bernoulli to explain the physics of lift, when it is the wrong. A cylinder with the same curvature on the upper and lower sides can generate lift.
Bernoulli is still completely valid as an explanation for air velocity differences causing pressure differentials...but what it doesn't do is explain the entire story of how wings work.
|Quoting zeke (Reply 99):|
Ask me again in 20 years when we understand what they have found. It does not matter what techniques you use, you cannot predict aerodynamics with 100% precision, there are always assumptions.
True, but in this case, I don't think we need interpretations of exotic aerodynamic theory to conclude that this accident was caused more by pilot actions/inactions than the aerodynamics of the aircraftt.
|Quoting hivue (Reply 104):|
Both sticks have a priority button. It just boils down to two guys trying to control one airplane at the same time. Same thing happens on Boeings.
....which was exacerbated by a lack of clear communication and task assigning.
From the report, it seems that control is decided by whomever pushes the button last. I don't know what happens if both pilots are pushing their buttons at the same time.
|Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 110):|
Differential input was fully tested. Bottom line is that these two accidents had nothing to do with sidestick design and function and everything to do with CRM and training.
I agree. If there was something inherently dangerous with the Airbus stick design, planes would be falling out of the sky like snowflakes. Whether or not linked sticks may have helped the crew recover, will never be agreed on.
What we do know is that these pilots weren't communicating and that added to the confusion and the lack of the coordination interfered with their ability come up with a plan to recover.