Here's some new info on the Air France accident.
World Tourism and Aviation News
Air_France_Crash_Suggests_Inadequate_Training
It appears the dreaded "pilot error" finding is arising, and unfortunately it appears to have merit if the 'facts' quoted are accurate.
One comment re. stall recovery: in the military, the answer is "unload"/i.e reduce the angle of attack; in the FAA/air transport world the answer is full power/nibble the 'stick shaker' i.e. verge of stall and minimize loss of altitude. I have never subscribed to that theory, if for no other reason than if the airplane is on the verge of stall, why not use what altitude you have available to recover. If you're at 100 feet, use 95 feet, just don't hit the ground; if you're at 1500' (Continental commuter in icing), use whatever it takes to regain flying speed, who cares if you descend to a few hundred feet? You've already screwed up by getting into a stall situation, are you going to "minimize" the screw up by minimizing your altitude loss and/or busting your altitude clearance?
As is obvious, this is a bit of a sore point with me re. FAA flight checks. Granted they need an objective measure, so they come up with a number. In the real world, not crashing is the criteria IMHO, and if the airplane approaches a stall (never ever came close), I don't give a damn how much I bust an altitude clearance. That comes under the heading of judgement, and that's why they pay you the big bucks to sit in the left seat!
World Tourism and Aviation News
Air_France_Crash_Suggests_Inadequate_Training
It appears the dreaded "pilot error" finding is arising, and unfortunately it appears to have merit if the 'facts' quoted are accurate.
One comment re. stall recovery: in the military, the answer is "unload"/i.e reduce the angle of attack; in the FAA/air transport world the answer is full power/nibble the 'stick shaker' i.e. verge of stall and minimize loss of altitude. I have never subscribed to that theory, if for no other reason than if the airplane is on the verge of stall, why not use what altitude you have available to recover. If you're at 100 feet, use 95 feet, just don't hit the ground; if you're at 1500' (Continental commuter in icing), use whatever it takes to regain flying speed, who cares if you descend to a few hundred feet? You've already screwed up by getting into a stall situation, are you going to "minimize" the screw up by minimizing your altitude loss and/or busting your altitude clearance?
As is obvious, this is a bit of a sore point with me re. FAA flight checks. Granted they need an objective measure, so they come up with a number. In the real world, not crashing is the criteria IMHO, and if the airplane approaches a stall (never ever came close), I don't give a damn how much I bust an altitude clearance. That comes under the heading of judgement, and that's why they pay you the big bucks to sit in the left seat!
