Handling of imminent crash

Date:         23 Aug 98 14:34:12 
From:         JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@videotron.ca>
View raw article
  or MIME structure

There are two incidents which come to mind where I wonder if
survavibility would not have been increased with the use of
"unconventional" methods:

Ethiopian 767 landing on water:  He landed pretty much as if he were
going to land on a runway.  What would have happened if, at last second,
he would have raised the angle of attack to stall the aircraft. Wouldn't
this have dramatically reduced the airspeed and then caused a lesser
drop into the water from low altitude ?

American 757 at Cali:  Increased speed/altitude to try to avoid
mountain, so it hit it at higher speed causing more destruction. What
would the result have been had the pilot instead put in the thrust
reversers to slow the airplane and raise angle of attack to match the
mountain and have it "land" uphill ?  Yep, using thrust reversers and
stalling the aircraft by raising its angle of attack with insufficient
speed are big no-nos, but wouldn't this have lessened the impact ?

Which brings me to the future. Is it something that aircraft manufacturs
should look into ? *IF* a computer were to know that it was physically
impossible to save a situation (eg: Cali) could it not then make the
decision to stop trying to save it and act to increase survavibility?

It seems to me that in some cases, taking unconventional actions which
would go against a pilot's instincts would actually reduce loss of life.
How are pilots trained to deal with a major aircraft about to crash ? Is
their training limited to trying to avoid crashes ? I assume that
aircraft's systems are aslo designed to deal solely with avoiding a
crash instead of dealing with one ?

Thoughts ?