stall recognition and recovery

The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...=djemalertNEWS

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...05MA003&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf


Andy

On Feb 19, 7:44*am, Andy wrote:
The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...?mod=djemalert....

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...05MA003&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf

Andy

I simply don't buy it. How any pilot with even basic experience, not
to mention thousands of hours, will react to a stall warning by
pulling on the stick/yoke?? and "pitched up to a 31-degree angle" ??
It's not like they were so close to the ground that they had to pullup
to clear it. As usual, the NTSB rather put the blame on the pilots...

Ramy

Linking the present accident to the earlier CRJ one doesn't look very
reasonable. The CRJ accident was clearly the result of stupidity on
behalf of the two pilots - flying close to the operating envelope of
the aircraft, failing to deal with an impending stall and then failing
to follow engine-start procedures.

It's certainly possible that the latest accident resulted from control
instability due to ice buildup - large uncommanded control movements
are well known.

I don't see the connection between them.

Mike

I, for one, hope that all accidents are pilot error; we must be able to
depend on our equipment all the time. Otherwise, there is no hope.

At 20:02 19 February 2009, Ramy wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:44=A0am, Andy wrote:
The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...3Ddjemalert..=
..

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...MA003&rpt=3Dfa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf

Andy

I simply don't buy it. How any pilot with even basic experience, not
to mention thousands of hours, will react to a stall warning by
pulling on the stick/yoke?? and "pitched up to a 31-degree angle" ??
It's not like they were so close to the ground that they had to pullup
to clear it. As usual, the NTSB rather put the blame on the pilots...

Ramy

I wish so too, but the reality is different. The last 2 commercial
aviation accidents proves it - birds and ice (probably). Luckily in
the first case there was a big river to land in.
The only thing we can really depend on is statistics...

Ramy

On Feb 19, 12:30*pm, Nyal Williams wrote:
I, for one, hope that all accidents are pilot error; we must be able to
depend on our equipment all the time. *Otherwise, there is no hope.

At 20:02 19 February 2009, Ramy wrote:



On Feb 19, 7:44=A0am, Andy *wrote:
The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...?mod=3Ddjemale....
..

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...MA003&rpt=3Dfa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf

Andy

I simply don't buy it. How any pilot with even basic experience, not
to mention thousands of hours, will react to a stall warning by
pulling on the stick/yoke?? and "pitched up to a 31-degree angle" ??
It's not like they were so close to the ground that they had to pullup
to clear it. As usual, the NTSB rather put the blame on the pilots...

Ramy- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Feb 19, 12:02*pm, Ramy wrote:
On Feb 19, 7:44*am, Andy wrote:

The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...?mod=djemalert....

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...05MA003&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf

Andy

I simply don't buy it. How any pilot with even basic experience, not
to mention thousands of hours, will react to a stall warning by
pulling on the stick/yoke?? and "pitched up to a 31-degree angle" ??
It's not like they were so close to the ground that they had to pullup
to clear it. As usual, the NTSB rather put the blame on the pilots...

Ramy

What you think the pilots should not be blamed becasue they could not
possibly be so incompetent to conduct the amazing list of bad
decisions and errors that made? That's an interesting defense.

Well if that accident chain does not deserve to be blamed on the
pilots I don't know what does. Lets see, lets climb the sucker to
FL410, with the AP in rate mode so is really slow when we get there,
lets not monitor airspeed during this (even though we know are pushing
the envelope). Lets not follow engine failure checklists properly,
lets not pitch over and correctly do a windmills start, etc. (I can't
recall if it as established how much they knew about core lock if at
all, but they failed to execute basic restart procedure). Lets not
declare our emergency and try to cover up for a while hoping we can
get ourselves out of this hole. Lets not fly the sucker when all else
goes wrong and maintain glide to any of several airports etc. etc.
etc. This flight crew deserved evey bit of cricism they got. Some
aspects of training programs and the core lock on the GE engines etc.
need to be addressed but are very distant factors in my opinion.

And dude if that does ### convince you these folks were an accident
waiting to happen read ### cockpit transcript. Dude.

Most commentators came down hard on the pilots as well, including
several magazine articles.

There are multiple fatal accidents where things as "simple" as
misunderstanding stick shaker/pusher vs. Mach buffeting, obstructed
pitot/static systems (and fighting the stick pusher thinking it was
Mach induced, etc. etc.). However none of those are even close to the
chain of events this flight crew managed to accomplish.

Darryl

On Feb 19, 4:43*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Feb 19, 12:02*pm, Ramy wrote:





On Feb 19, 7:44*am, Andy wrote:

The following references are provided, without my comment, for those
interested in the subject of stall recognition and recovery.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1234...?mod=djemalert...

reports on the referenced fatal accident:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?...05MA003&rpt=fa

http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2007/AAR0701.pdf

Andy

I simply don't buy it. How any pilot with even basic experience, not
to mention thousands of hours, will react to a stall warning by
pulling on the stick/yoke?? and "pitched up to a 31-degree angle" ??
It's not like they were so close to the ground that they had to pullup
to clear it. As usual, the NTSB rather put the blame on the pilots...

Ramy

What you think the pilots should not be blamed becasue they could not
possibly be so incompetent to conduct the amazing list of bad
decisions and errors that made? That's an interesting defense.

Well if that accident chain does not deserve to be blamed on the
pilots I don't know what does. Lets see, lets climb the sucker to
FL410, with the AP in rate mode so is really slow when we get there,
lets not monitor airspeed during this (even though we know are pushing
the envelope). Lets not follow engine failure checklists properly,
lets not pitch over and correctly do a windmills start, etc. (I can't
recall if it as established how much they knew about core lock if at
all, but they failed to execute basic restart procedure). Lets not
declare our emergency and try to cover up for a while hoping we can
get ourselves out of this hole. Lets not fly the sucker when all else
goes wrong and maintain glide to any of several airports etc. etc.
etc. This flight crew deserved evey bit of cricism they got. Some
aspects of training programs and the core lock on the GE engines etc.
need to be addressed but are very distant factors in my opinion.

And dude if that does ### convince you these folks were an accident
waiting to happen read ### cockpit transcript. Dude.

Most commentators came down hard on the pilots as well, including
several magazine articles.

There are multiple fatal accidents where things as "simple" as
misunderstanding stick shaker/pusher vs. Mach buffeting, obstructed
pitot/static systems (and fighting the stick pusher thinking it was
Mach induced, etc. etc.). However none of those are even close to *the
chain of events this flight crew managed to accomplish.

Darryl- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't think we are talking about the same accidents Darryl. I was
referring to the recent one in the article. And I don't say pilots
should not be blamed for many possible mistakes they do. All I say is
that I don't buy the claim that experience pilot purposely pulled the
yoke and piched up to 31 degree angle without recognizing he is
stalling the aircraft. Unless I missread the article this is a
complete BS.

Ramy

Nyal Williams wrote:
I, for one, hope that all accidents are pilot error; we must be able to
depend on our equipment all the time. Otherwise, there is no hope.

If you mean pilot error instead of equipment failure, I agree; if you
mean, pilots manipulating the equipment improperly, I probably don't
agree. My belief is it's easier to change the equipment than the pilot.
Examples: automatic control connections, docile stall behavior, spoiler
that don't open spontaneously if unlocked, ditto for canopies.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

On Feb 19, 9:17*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
I, for one, hope that all accidents are pilot error; we must be able to
depend on our equipment all the time. *Otherwise, there is no hope.

If you mean pilot error instead of equipment failure, I agree; if you
mean, pilots manipulating the equipment improperly, I probably don't
agree. My belief is it's easier to change the equipment than the pilot.
Examples: automatic control connections, docile stall behavior, spoiler
that don't open spontaneously if unlocked, ditto for canopies.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes"http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* * * New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" atwww.motorglider.org

Very interesting information he http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/19/buf...ils/index.html

Of course I meant the former. I can't even get to the second idea from my
statement; that's pilot causing equipment failure and therefore pilot
error. Pulling off the wings by exceeding Vne is pilot error. We agree.

At 03:17 20 February 2009, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
I, for one, hope that all accidents are pilot error; we must be able
to
depend on our equipment all the time. Otherwise, there is no hope.

If you mean pilot error instead of equipment failure, I agree; if you
mean, pilots manipulating the equipment improperly, I probably don't
agree. My belief is it's easier to change the equipment than the pilot.

Examples: automatic control connections, docile stall behavior, spoiler
that don't open spontaneously if unlocked, ditto for canopies.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
* Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

* Updated! "Transponders in Sailplanes" http://tinyurl.com/y739x4
* New Jan '08 - sections on Mode S, TPAS, ADS-B, Flarm, more

* "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at
www.motorglider.org