No announcement yet.

Did we almost lose another Air France widebody?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    Call it whatever the phugoid you want. It's an aggressive, measured pull up to harvest all the energy you possibly can and turn it in to altitude.

    And you avoided the key question of "what's new", so I still conclude that I was right the first time, you are in it to bash the pilots and spew procedures, big words, acronyms, and admonishment.

    Delta 191 pulled up too little.
    Colgan and Air France and the guys in Detroit pulled up too much.

    If I recall this incident, they guys pulled up adequately...amazing how that worked, but not particularly new. I blame the pilots training and experience for the good outcome. You blame luck.
    I "blame" the exceptional hand-flying skills of the pilot flying and the CRM of a well-trained BA crew. But that isn't always the case is it? Therefore it will not always be the outcome.

    The SACAA noted in their findings: "During this time the flight deck crew had no indication or understanding of what had caused the lack in performance of the aircraft."
    The entire point of this thread is to illustrate an extremely stressful and confusing scenario where PILOTS really want those hard envelope protections. How you get from there to 'bash the pilots' is baffling.


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      Blah blah blah.
      Yay for fundamentals- no matter what, keep flying the plane, but no news here.

      EXCEPTINAL flying skills, or just WELL TRAINED skills (that almost all pilots) have.

      A long time ago, Airbus decided to turn it over to the computer- nothing new.
      A long time ago Gabieeee made some sort of comment about stall warning = optimum pull up, stick shaker = BEYOND optimum & performance degradation.

      If someone sees something NEW, let me know.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.


      • #18
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        the guys in Detroit pulled up too much.
        You know how dare this case is for me.

        They pulled exactly as much as they wanted to pull, except they wanted too much.

        This accident is a great example to show how well pilots can modulate the elevator to keep the AoA fluctuating very close around a target value even in planes that not only lack computer-assisted controls (be it in the hard Airbus or soft Boeing forms) but even lacks a direct relationship between the control column position and the elevator deflection like direct cable linkage or traditional hydraulics do.

        This is also a great example of how trying to extract the extra lift supposedly available between the stickshaker AoA and the actual critical AoA is in general a killer rather than a saver.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---


        • #19
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          You know how dare this case is for me.
          After your aeroengineer comments (and the final report saying there probably could have been a successful takeoff), I found this one sadly interesting.

          Evan's point that they were having a "What's it doing now" moment and were faced with a nasty fence "telling them" you better pull up hard is a factor here.

          Do you advocate that stall/slow flight/oh shit we need altitude training be updated to focus a little more on maximum performance...that stall warning maybe = maximum performance while stick shaker = behind the drag curve and getting extra dangerously close to stall?

          We were the chief gripers to "blindly" go to full power + max climb attitude, to hell with everything else (I am exaggerating unfairly)- now Evan want's to see MAX PERFORMANCE NAILED (which was the point of the old training).

          No argument on this stuff- but the insiders have always seemed rather silent.

          As you can see, I remembered this discussion (and therefore am not dismissing it). It happened a pretty good while ago- thus I'm still looking for something new from you or Evan.

          I am glad the pilots here dealt with this situation.

          I have not read that they royally botched it from a style perspective? Did I miss something?

          I don't necessarily object to an aeroplanie that stops relentless pull ups when a stall becomes imminent...I'm sure the stick shaker/pusher could be amped up just a little bit more to achieve this- cant be too much more complicated than MCAS.

          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post

            The A320 video is an old one. It still confuses me when he releases the full-right bank input to the hard limit and it rolls to level. I always thought it only rolled back to the 'soft' limit of 33 deg if you released the stick. Perhaps ATL can set us straight on that.
            It's MSN001, Heaven only knows how that particular aircraft behaves. But, yes, it's supposed to go back to 33-ish.