Toe original AF447 thread is closed so...

[Gabriel]

I do favor prompt, measured, nose-down inputs and speed checks and power adjustments in response to stall warnings.

Except in this case there was no stall warning. Not until they pulled up. Winding the watch would have been an appropriate stall-prevention maneuver (or lighting the cigarette, although that could have triggered a pull-up inducing smoke warning)

[Evan]

Except in this case there was no stall warning. Not until they pulled up. Winding the watch would have been an appropriate stall-prevention maneuver (or lighting the cigarette, although that could have triggered a pull-up inducing smoke warning)

The pull-up that initiated the stall was preceded by (though not a reaction to) at least two consecutive stall warnings.

However, the pull up that initiated the stall was also proceeded by (and potentially a reaction to) the sudden reappearance of the flight directors with a pitch-up command.

[3WE]

Except…

Except, I almost never favor a relentless pull up…unless there’s a REALLY GOOD, PARTICULAR REASON…

Admittedly, if you WANT to stall, it’s a really good, particular reason.

[Gabriel]

Except, I almost never favor a relentless pull up…unless there’s a REALLY GOOD, PARTICULAR REASON…

Admittedly, if you WANT to stall, it’s a really good, particular reason.

In an Airbus, there are a number of things that would qualify as a good reason to relentlessly pull up⁽¹⁾, which would not qualify as good reasons in a 737 or a Boeing.

(1) Small but binding print: As long as the plane is in Normal Law.

[Evan]

In an Airbus, there are a number of things that would qualify as a good reason to relentlessly pull up⁽¹⁾, which would not qualify as good reasons in a 737 or a Boeing.

(1) Small but binding print: As long as the plane is in Normal Law.

1) Wind shear
2) Obstacle or terrain clearance

What else?

[Gabriel]

You just mentioned 2 things that are NOT "you WANT to stall" which are good reasons to relentlessly pull up.
2 is a number.

Point is that pilots get to know and trust the plane's ability to to handle a relentless pull up without fear fo stalling (fine print still applies but may get lost under startle and panic).

[3WE]

1) Wind shear
2) Obstacle or terrain clearance

What else?

Aggressive, carefully, critically managed pull up…yes.

Relentless. No.

I guess a good computer routine to link AOA to pitch would handle a sudden shear + AOA-affecting gust…

Upon further thought, most wind shear events do not_call for relentless pull ups…so, I stand by my general rule for aggressive pull ups to be limited and carefully, quickly managed.

[Gabriel]

I mean that you can and should pull up relentlessly in an Airbus if you need to extract max escape performance. The plane itself will moderate your relentlessness and keep the AoA just shy of stall. You don't need this "if the stickshaker triggers, reduce the AoA just a bit and keep and modulate it around onset of the stickshaker". You just pull up with the peace of mind that the stall warning (that may be disabled in normal law or not) will never sound. HAL will not let Dave stall. Colgan, AA at Cali, Delta 191, The MD-80's of Northwest at Detroit and Spanair at Madrid, the Diet Pepsi Pinnacle guys, Air Florida at Washington, and others. could have puled all the way up they would not (may not) have crashed.

I think that that safety feature is indeed a good one, because a) not all pilots follow your advise, b) it is not super clear what is the threshold of "relentless" (not in advance, not until you get a stall warning), and c) not all pilots (even some a-priory competent ones) will perform your advise competently when the fin hits the sham.

[Evan]

I mean that you can and should pull up relentlessly in an Airbus if you need to extract max escape performance. The plane itself will moderate your relentlessness and keep the AoA just shy of stall. You don't need this "if the stickshaker triggers, reduce the AoA just a bit and keep and modulate it around onset of the stickshaker". You just pull up with the peace of mind that the stall warning (that may be disabled in normal law or not) will never sound. HAL will not let Dave stall. Colgan, AA at Cali, Delta 191, The MD-80's of Northwest at Detroit and Spanair at Madrid, the Diet Pepsi Pinnacle guys, Air Florida at Washington, and others. could have puled all the way up they would not (may not) have crashed.

I think that that safety feature is indeed a good one, because a) not all pilots follow your advise, b) it is not super clear what is the threshold of "relentless" (not in advance, not until you get a stall warning), and c) not all pilots (even some a-priory competent ones) will perform your advise competently when the fin hits the sham.

Look, you might be right. It has been speculated to have been a factor, as you know. The PF is the first to call out 'alternate law protections' so from that point on he knew (it took him 18 seconds to realize this - BAD CRM). Around that moment, he does relax the pitch inputs and even makes nose-down inputs. This is also the point at which things start to 'go back down' to sustainable levels. Again, the real mystery is why he pulled up again after that, now clearly aware that the plane was in Alternate Law.

But, aside from the escape procedures that I mentioned, Airbus pilots are not taught to pull up relentlessly. I don't know where you're getting that. The old stall procedure prioritized thrust to maintain critical altitude. It did not instruct pilots to pull up relentlessly.

[Gabriel]

Look, you might be right. It has been speculated to have been a factor, as you know. The PF is the first to call out 'alternate law protections' so from that point on he knew (it took him 18 seconds to realize this - BAD CRM). Around that moment, he does relax the pitch inputs and even makes nose-down inputs. This is also the point at which things start to 'go back down' to sustainable levels. Again, the real mystery is why he pulled up again after that, now clearly aware that the plane was in Alternate Law.

The answer if of course I don't know. I suspect that the pilot under panic was not acting rationally or reasoning effectively. I am not convinced that the pilot reduced the nose-up inputs because he realized of the implications of the alternate law or if his call and subsequent action just happened to coexist for different independent reasons (for example, because the PNF was telling him to stop climbing and to go down).

But, aside from the escape procedures that I mentioned, Airbus pilots are not taught to pull up relentlessly. I don't know where you're getting that.

And I don't know where your are getting that I am getting that.

The old stall procedure prioritized thrust to maintain critical altitude. It did not instruct pilots to pull up relentlessly.

I never said that it did.

What I said is that Airbus pilots learn that they can pull up with confidence and no concerns to stall (with some fine print in effect).

I realize that this is not official Airbus pilot training, but this is the message that Airbus has been conveying, directly or indirectly:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei_IY8VymbU

I think that Airbus changed the pitch (speach) after AF447 and the industry consensus for the new stall procedure.

[Evan]

What I said is that Airbus pilots learn that they can pull up with confidence and no concerns to stall (with some fine print in effect).

I realize that this is not official Airbus pilot training, but this is the message that Airbus has been conveying, directly or indirectly.

No no no. Airbus is never saying 'pull up with impunity' outside of escape maneuvers where that is actually called for.

Airbus is saying pull up with caution and concern for airmanship and aerodynamics. The training in that respect is in alignment with any other type training.

They didn't design it for aerobatics or stunt flying. They designed it to have defenses against the dunderheads who might treat it that way.

That is the message they have always been conveying.

And you realize that Bruce Dickerson doing dickhead things is not official Airbus pilot training (although thank god it is Bruce Dickerson proof).

[3WE]

The old stall procedure prioritized thrust to maintain critical altitude. It did not instruct pilots to pull up relentlessly.

I never said that it did.

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO SAID WHAT…

The fact is that there’s a somewhat troubling NUMBER of crashes with relentless pull ups.

My total ass hat parlour talk opinion is that A FEW pilots forget their 172 training and rote repeat full power and nail a (normal) max-climb attitude…a great procedure for INCIPIENT stalls in powerful planes…maybe not so good for STALLED aeroplanies…

I always thought an occasional reminder might help versus memory regurgitation but conversely…I have no real business offering an opinion.

[Gabriel]

I mean that you can and should pull up relentlessly in an Airbus if you need to extract max escape performance. The plane itself will moderate your relentlessness and keep the AoA just shy of stall. You don't need this "if the stickshaker triggers, reduce the AoA just a bit and keep and modulate it around onset of the stickshaker". You just pull up with the peace of mind that the stall warning will never sound. HAL will not let Dave stall.

The old stall procedure prioritized thrust to maintain critical altitude. It did not instruct pilots to pull up relentlessly.

I never said that. What I said is that Airbus pilots learn that they can pull up with confidence and no concerns to stall

No no no. Airbus is never saying 'pull up with impunity' outside of escape maneuvers where that is actually called for.

Do you see the disconnect between the parallel universes?

[Evan]

Do you see the disconnect between the parallel universes?

I think you might be living in a universe parallel with yourself.

In an Airbus, there are a number of things that would qualify as a good reason to relentlessly pull up⁽¹⁾, which would not qualify as good reasons in a 737 or a Boeing.

And then:

I mean that you can and should pull up relentlessly in an Airbus if you need to extract max escape performance.

The first statement comes off to me as scarebus legend: ‘Airbus pilots learn to pull up relentlessly’. There are two situations I can think of where pulling up relentlessly would be taught (directly or indirectly). Both are in ground proximity and both are also taught for the 737.

Otherwise, Airbus pilots are taught to remain in the envelope with careful, measured sidestick inputs. A.k.a Airmanship.

So what is your point (or agenda) there?

[3WE]

So what is your point (or agenda) there?

QUITE A FEW crashes have come from relentless pull ups, and quite a lot of BASIC training says “dont”, and there’s an impressive list of reasons why it should USUALLY be avoided…