Peter Duniho wrote:

Each method has positive and negative
aspects, and it's up to the pilot to make a decision regarding how to
apply their training.

This is only possible where the pilot knows that both possibilities exist.
If the training is as described, the pilot was given one way to deal with
the turbulance. There was nothing - of which he knew - with which to
compare it.


As far as this particular accident goes, are you saying it's the case that
the pilot training specifically *instructed* the pilot to make large back
and forth rudder inputs? I haven't seen any documentation of that claim.

It certainly sounds like he was instructed to use the rudder to try to
control aircraft in that case, at least from the article in question.
Whether he was ever taught to stop trying this method at a certain point,
I'm in no position to say.

What I have seen are statements that the training neglected to mention
that multiple full deflection rudder inputs were bad; that's an entirely
different claim. After all, flying the airplane into a mountainside is
also bad, but I would be surprised if pilot training spends much time
covering that topic.

That's not a fair comparison. One could make a reasonable guess as to the
result of flying into a mountainside. I don't think it reasonable to
believe that futzing with the rudder, even to an extreme, is going to cause
the tail to fall off. If someone told me that, I'd probably assume they
were kidding (at least at first). Who'd build a plane like that??


One could argue that pilots ought to be familiar with the certification
rules and understand that the rules only grant the pilot a single full
deflection of the rudder in one direction, after which the rudder can be
returned only to the neutral position. Regardless of training.

Now, that's a debate for another time,

True, but it is a good point. It's why I was "happy" to read that article
to which I referred earlier: it reminded me that the definition of Va has
certain "limits".

[...]
Beyond all that, it is still factually true that the pilot's control
inputs
are what *caused* the accident. My original point is that the NTSB will
state a fact like this, and the media will misinterpret to mean that the
NTSB is assigning blame or fault to the pilot. That's simply not the
case. The pilot can still be the cause of an accident without being to
blame,
either partially or wholely. My use of the word "blame" obviously
distracted from what I was really trying to say.

Agreed, esp. about the media mangling meaning.

- Andrew