Sylvia Else wrote in
u:



John Mazor wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...

Pooh Bear wrote:


John Mazor wrote:


"OtisWinslow" wrote in message
om...


I thought the Captain was in charge of making sure the
aircraft was operated safely. Why the hell didn't he intervene
and stop the excessive movement? He just sat there
and watched knowing that it was the wrong action to
take? Sure points the finger at Airbus and AA's training program.

Perhaps, but it also reflects the prevailing but erroneous
impression

among

airline pilots that you can't break the airplane with control
inputs

below

maneuvering speed. This was not limited to Airbus products.

Which then begs the question why were airline pilots erroneously
under

that

impression ?

It was a bizarre notion anyway. Fly your airliner below maneuvering
speed. Apply full right aileron, and wait.

I guarantee you'll have a broken plane.


Cute - ditto for full forward yoke 100' AGL - but irrelevant.

Forget the liability dogfight, the most troublesome aspect of this
accident is how long-standing engineers' knowledge that a rudder
wig-wag could break the tail on an airplane never got disseminated
down to the people who actually fly the damn things.


It's probably not just a problem in aviation. There are things that
seem so blindingly obvious to engineers that it's difficult for them
to conceive the notion that a non-engineer might not recognise the
truth.

So, of all the things that the engineers consider obvious, how are
they to enumerate those that won't be obvious to non-engineers?

Babbage was reputedly asked whether his calculating engine would give
the correct answers even if given the wrong input. He's quoted as
expressing bemusement at the kind of thinking that could lead to such
a question.

Forums like this one may help -

Good christ, you really are a fjuking half wit


Bertie