Outstanding link! Very interesting! The following comments are based on reading the report, starting at Page 18.
It would appear they pulled up relentlessly for several seconds (the report is not clear- 0 to 35 seconds of 'relentless' pull up and slowing)- but they did so with the intention of doing a deliberate stall (so no foul).
The warning and stall occur at about 99 knots.
The pilots immediately power up to take advantage of the big powerful engines which can generally power you out of an incipient stall with no altitude loss (although 99 knots sounds a little too late to power out of an incipient stall).
However, about 10 seconds pass before there's a nose down input.
During this time the plane displays traditionally ugly lateral stability and has big bank excursions with the pilot making corrective inputs with limited success (During this time the pilot even uses the rudder to make yaw corrections!!! How incompetent of him!).
The pilot finally goes full nose down and 5 seconds later, the plane appears to be 'flying' unstalled at 138 kts.
Then it's not clear what happens- perhaps they had already developed a significant sink rate and this resulted in a secondary stall- even though the airspeed and attitude "seemed" good (no huge surprise- that's what a secondary stall is- you think your attitude is healthy, but your AOA is not).
Anyway, 3 seconds later, the plane starts going "obscenely nose up" and this is in spite of the pilot giving further nose down input. From there, it seems that things go totally to hell.
I'm not sure what the failure was. As commented on another thread- airliners really aren't really designed to be stalled so who says they behave nicely when they do stall. I'd fault the guy for making this a 10 second stall at 3000 feet AGL- this thing isn't a Cessna 150. But it seems like he recovers ok...It's after that that bugs me some...the secondary stall...not unlike something I said to Gabriel in a PM...but how did the plane get itself to to those crazy nose-high attitudes with the pilot giving nose-down inputs?
Comment