Airbus presentation on revised stall recovery

This presentation by Airbus test pilot Xavier Lesceu (click here), given before a performance and operations conference in Dubai in May 2011, contains a detailed explanation of the blanket revision of procedures for stall recovery adopted last year.

It’s particularly interesting to read in light of the revelations about Air France flight AF447, notably the observation that the previous recovery procedure could result in “reluctance to apply nose-down input”.

, , , , , ,

2 Responses to Airbus presentation on revised stall recovery

  1. saverio biasutto 19 June, 2011 at 2:27 pm #

    I raise some questions from PAX point of view:

    1. Nice to read “The AF447 pilots do the right procedures” and now that those procedures are dismissed because they’re “wrong”.

    2. The new procedure to exit from stall is the same, familiar also to “flight simulator” users: how could the “authorities” release such a wrong (old) procedure?

    3. What is the margin of discretion of a pilot to not follow a procedure that may lead to a crash?

    Thanks to anybody who will answer.

  2. mark wilson 22 June, 2011 at 9:13 am #

    Incredible that an airliner can trim itself into a stall, and the pilots be unaware of that feature and not be able to apply correct and effective recovery action (lower the nose, trim forward and close the thrust levers).

    With supposedly enlightened training there is no excuse for lack of understanding, not to mention basic IF skills, that is a comment on operator/manufacturer complacency. Clearly such pilots are of the computer mindset where “nothing can go wrong”, a further comment on reliance on glass-cockpit automation.

    So why did the airplane fly into a range of storms without some preparation, eg significant off-track deviation and/or descent to a lower altitude (which gives a larger manouvre margin)? – probably reliance on automatic radar which ‘washes out’ CBs that the radar/computer reckons will not affect the airplane. Who would belive that? Basically a sad outcome…with the automation mindset the AF447 was an accident ‘waiting to happen ‘.

Leave a Reply