Date: 21 Sep 98 03:57:23 From: firstname.lastname@example.org (John Wright) Organization: Janet, me and our cats in our little cottage References: 1 2 3 Followups: 1 2
View raw article or MIME structure
On 10 Sep 98 03:04:17 , in <airliners.1998.1455@ohare.Chicago.COM>, J. B. wrote: >PS2727 wrote: >> If I am flying at 30 ft and high AOA and want to "go around" I would add >> power and pull up, expecting the elevators to go up and engines to >> accelerate. From what I understand about the A320 control systems this >> is not necessarily what happens in all cases. > >I'm not an expert on all the details of this incident, but I thought >that regardless of the computers and flight control system, if you're at >the far end of the power curve (max power and high AOA) the only thing >you have left is to lower the nose to gain airspeed. If you're at 30 >AGL, you have no options. You are absolutely right. It always *seems* counterintuitive and therefore difficult for even experienced pilots to do, but the way out of the described situation (at some larger altitude than 30 feet) is to push the nose down. ISTR Pete Mellor in another post saying that the DFDR showed the pilot *trying* to pull the nose up - in which case he was doing totally the wrong thing. The FCS trying to push the nose down was trying to do the right thing. However, as JB says, at 30 feet you have no options left. The way I was taught to fly and the way I have been taught to teach people to fly is simply to *always* give yourself a way out. This debate backs up my theory underlying the Habsheim accident, that software people always blame the computers, and pilots always blame the pilot :-) -- John Wright "There's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got _much_ spam in it." "I don't want *any* spam..."