Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

A little birdie told me

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
The problem with the 737 is the ugly factor. The 757 is still one sexy looking machine that everyone would prefer to fly/ride on. Nuff said.
 
You are wrong. If in alternate law which the aircraft was... It did let the pilots know that the aircraft was in a stall. If the other pilot would have taken control of the captain stick he would have known as he would have given dual imput. I seem to remember an Egypt Air crash were the FO went crazy. Wasn't that a boeing product?

Please try to post complete sentences, reading this hurts my brain.

Here is a thorough, if lengthy, article which I feel fairly covers the Air France 447 crash and how Airbus design philosophy may have played a role:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/9231855/Air-France-Flight-447-Damn-it-were-going-to-crash.html

The FO was applying go-around/windshear recovery technique... TOGA, full aft sidestick. The automation (in his mind) was supposed to take care of the rest.

Neither of the other pilots realized what he was doing until 50 seconds to impact.
 
Last edited:
In that case, the automation completely failed to prevent the pilot from exceeding the critical angle of attack, and failed to give any clear audible, visual, or tactile clues that the airplane was in fact stalled.


Sure .... No warning of a stall whatsoever. Except for the Stall warning that annunciated the stall 20 times. :eek:
 
The FO was applying go-around/windshear recovery technique... TOGA, full aft sidestick. The automation (in his mind) was supposed to take care of the rest.

The FAA has changed their stall recovery procedure as a result of this crash (nose down first, then power).

I seem to remember an Egypt Air crash were the FO went crazy. Wasn't that a boeing product?

I wouldn't even be that dramatic. For further reading about "real" airplanes, I'd recommend Aeroperu 603 and Birginair 301.
 
The FAA has changed their stall recovery procedure as a result of this crash (nose down first, then power).



I wouldn't even be that dramatic. For further reading about "real" airplanes, I'd recommend Aeroperu 603 and Birginair 301.

That has ALWAYS been how you recover from a stall...until the guys used to having after burners started dictating how airline pilots should be taught. Now we are just going back to what it was in the first place.
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top