Date: 23 Aug 98 14:34:12 From: JF Mezei <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 ?