so yeah, this is from the article that Evan posted in response to my thread on airtran/Boeing AoA business. wonder if the same holds true for these AF yo-yo's
AOA backup indication following
pitot or static system failures. The
AOA instrument described in this article
is useful as a backup for unreliable
airspeed indication caused by pitot or
static source blockage because the calculation
of indicated AOA is not greatly
affected by pitot or static pressure
inputs for its calibration, and the displayed
value has not been normalized.
Pitot or static system failure
requires the flight crew to take several
fundamental steps to resolve the
problem (see “Erroneous Flight
Instrument Information,” Aero no. 8,
Oct. 1999):
Recognize an unusual or suspect
indication.
Keep control of the airplane
with basic pitch and power skills.
Take inventory of reliable
information.
Find or maintain favorable
flying conditions.
Get assistance from others.
Use checklists.
Recognition of a problem
will be accomplished by
instrument scanning and
cross-check practices or crew
alerts, depending on the
design of the system in the
airplane. In this respect, AOA
instruments can be useful as
an additional cross-check.
Present procedures for unreliable
airspeed call for flying
the airplane by reference to
pitch attitudes, and refer
the pilots to reference tables
showing pitch attitudes for
various configurations,
weights, and altitudes that
will result in safe angles of
attack and speeds. AOA could
be useful if the relevant data
is included in the pitch and
power tables that already
exist in the nonnormal
checklist procedures. AOA
would be most useful in flying
the airplane in multiple
failure conditions where all
pitot or static sources are
affected, making all airspeed indicators
unreliable.
you will note that the highlighted section (by me) kinda mimics what the real pilots here have been saying all along. now, unless the scarebus is such a piece of crap that it CANNOT be flow using basic pitch and power controls (which i doubt), then it very well may be that all three of these pilots were sucky. again, i doubt this to be the case.
i wonder if the automation-heavy scarebus literature ever recommends for the pilots to use basic "anything"
AOA backup indication following
pitot or static system failures. The
AOA instrument described in this article
is useful as a backup for unreliable
airspeed indication caused by pitot or
static source blockage because the calculation
of indicated AOA is not greatly
affected by pitot or static pressure
inputs for its calibration, and the displayed
value has not been normalized.
Pitot or static system failure
requires the flight crew to take several
fundamental steps to resolve the
problem (see “Erroneous Flight
Instrument Information,” Aero no. 8,
Oct. 1999):
Recognize an unusual or suspect
indication.
Keep control of the airplane
with basic pitch and power skills.
Take inventory of reliable
information.
Find or maintain favorable
flying conditions.
Get assistance from others.
Use checklists.
Recognition of a problem
will be accomplished by
instrument scanning and
cross-check practices or crew
alerts, depending on the
design of the system in the
airplane. In this respect, AOA
instruments can be useful as
an additional cross-check.
Present procedures for unreliable
airspeed call for flying
the airplane by reference to
pitch attitudes, and refer
the pilots to reference tables
showing pitch attitudes for
various configurations,
weights, and altitudes that
will result in safe angles of
attack and speeds. AOA could
be useful if the relevant data
is included in the pitch and
power tables that already
exist in the nonnormal
checklist procedures. AOA
would be most useful in flying
the airplane in multiple
failure conditions where all
pitot or static sources are
affected, making all airspeed indicators
unreliable.
you will note that the highlighted section (by me) kinda mimics what the real pilots here have been saying all along. now, unless the scarebus is such a piece of crap that it CANNOT be flow using basic pitch and power controls (which i doubt), then it very well may be that all three of these pilots were sucky. again, i doubt this to be the case.
i wonder if the automation-heavy scarebus literature ever recommends for the pilots to use basic "anything"
Comment