That's what I thought, but, according to the article, an emergency was declared. Is it not possible to let ATC know that you have an unusual situation so they can make things a little easier for you, without declaring a full-fledged emergency?

I know you aren't an Airbus pilot, but in reading some of the AirAsia 8501 coverage something stuck out to me.

They say that because of the sophisticated automation of these planes, that they are "stall proof" (which obviously isn't true), and as such, their simulators do not include data/the ability to replicate deep stall scenarios at cruise/high altitude.

Can this really be true? Or are full stall (as opposed to approach to stall) scenarios not available for any aircraft in simulators?

To an unwashed member of the non-pilot family, it would seem pretty sketchy if Airbus chooses not to build these scenarios into their simulators despite the fact that we appear to have at least a couple examples of these planes stalling in cruise when "the holes in the swiss cheese" line up with catastrophic results. But perhaps this is not an Airbus thing and no heavies have this capability in the sim.

Do you have a source for that info amead? You have to consider that coverage of this kind of thing is absolutely atrocious from most media outlets. They could very well be completely misrepresenting the facts.

This was gleaned from a thread on PPRuNe (Professional Pilots Rumor Network) regarding the incident. It actually is a fascinating read, though it is enormous. Can't link to a specific post there, but it seems like this was a somewhat commonly held thing in that community that stall simulation was not available for the 'bus.

But, as you can imagine, there is a bit of an undertone of Boeing vs. Airbus rabble that isn't too dissimilar from your usual iPhone vs. Droid crusading. That's why I was curious if making the claim that "you can't practice full stalls in the Airbus sim" could be restated to "you can't practice full stalls in any passenger jet sim".

http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/5...singapore.html

There are some situations which are, by definition, emergencies. Having only one pilot is one of those. In fact, if you don't declare an emergency in this situation, the controller will probably do it for you once you explain the situation. This gives you top priority and relief from the normal rules and SOPs (e.g. airspace restrictions or the 250 knot speed limit below 10,000'), although you may have to defend any actions you take later.

Many pilots (especially GA pilots) share your reluctance to declaring an emergency. There seems to be a human nature thing to not want to pull that trigger, as if it somehow reflects negatively on the pilot or draws undue attention. I wouldn't have any hesitation to do so. The only downside is a little paperwork after the flight.

In the training I've done, we practice recovery from approach to stalls, i.e. recovery at the first indication of an incipient stall, which would be the stall warning. If you ignore the warning, you will get the stick shaker as the plane gets closer to a stalled condition. This would be impossible to ignore, but if you find a way to disregard the stick shaker and continue to raise the nose, you'll get the stick pusher, which physically applies hydraulic force to get the nose down.

We don't have any training scenarios that include getting tho the stick pusher point in stall development, and the only time we see the stick shaker is when we practice windshear recoveries. (In these scenarios, if we are getting close to the ground and unable to get a climb going, we pitch up right to the point where we nibble at the shaker and then relax the back pressure just enough to stop the shaker, repeating as necessary until we get a climb going).

My understanding of the Airbus is that the logic won't allow the plane to continue pitching up enough to develop a full stall. This seems consistent with what I know of the crash of Air France. That plane mushed all the way down to the ocean with the FO holding full back stick. The plane never got to a full stall, which would have been the result of this same action in a Boeing.

Thanks for your response.

I guess I was thinking more along the lines of it being too close to landing for the FO to be out of his seat, even for two seconds (it appears they were on approach).

Also, a question that came up in a related FT thread: media repots the aircraft had to be towed to the gate. Assuming the report is accurate, couldn't the FO have switched seats after landing to make use of the tiller?

There should never be a time where a pilot is alone in the cockpit. When one of us goes out, a flight attendant comes in (unless there's a jumpseater up front). That flight attendant handles the door when the pilot comes back in.

Also, we have a door control switch overhead that we can use to unlock the door, so it wouldn't be necessary to get up to do it. This means of allowing a pilot back in is not normally used because someone (flight attendant or jumpseater) is supposed to first look out through a peephole to ensure it is safe to open the door.

Yes, he certainly could but he isn't, strictly speaking, legal to do so since he hasn't had any training with the tiller or taxiing the plane in close quarters (such as parking at the gate). Another solution would have been to bring a Captain out to the plane to taxi the plane in.

Great stuff...as always!!

In a fly-by-wire plane, do you get stick shake? The system would have to be programmed to simulate stick shake when it detects a near-stall condition, right?

What does the Flight Augmentation Computer (FAC) do, and why would the captain leave his seat to manually pull the circuit breaker on this?

Is this an Airbus thing? I don't think I've heard that term on the planes I fly.

As for the circuit breakers, it would not be unusual for one pilot to stand in order to (a) find a particular circuit breaker and (b) reset it. I've done it myself on more than one occasion.

I'm not sure. My guess is that it wouldn't have a stick shaker since the flight logic will never let the plane get that close to a fully stalled wing (as we saw in the Air France crash).

I'll ask an Airbus pilot and get back to you on this.

It is an Airbus thing and in relation to the Air Asia crash. Supposedly the pilots pulled the circuit breaker on the FAC at some point. Would love to know from the Airbus pilot if this ever makes sense to do.

There was another incident about 10-20 years ago that involved a pilot pulling a breaker that made the warning system say "stall" instead of "sta-all". The investigators could tell a breaker was pulled and was material to the crash. It was a nuisance to the pilot so he pulled it...

Had another convo about Airbus on another forum. I'm a total newb to this though I fly a lot.

I was told the non computer instruments (airspeed, altitude) are pilot side to his left on the Airbus is this true?

It seems that these unrecoverable stalls (AF and Air Asia) involved - Airbus fly by wire. A possible computer instrument malfunction and a situation where the captain was out of his seat. The only pilot(s) left did not have non computer indicators (altitude, airspeed) in sight.... Therefore if something computer specific happened and the pilot is not in his seat the remaining pilot(s) have no secondary indication of airspeed or altitude on Airbus planes except to the extreme left on the captains side... Is this somewhat accurate?

Are these instruments in the same location on Boeings?

Fascinated by this stuff.

Would it matter if he was a captain? If it's not legal to operate single pilot, I think it would be hard to justify taxiing anywhere after you get the airplane safely stopped on the runway.

Great thread. I've been reading it on and off for years.

I was flying back to the US from NRT a year or two ago and we had a tailwind of 210 MPH and our ground speed was nearly 800 MPH. This was on a 772.

That's a good point, and one I hadn't thought of. I think you're right.

ever experienced or heard of something like this? why could first officer not open door for him?

pilot gets locked out cockpit on toilet break:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/we...t-gets-5089808

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...postcount=6350 already answered

A question occurred to me at the airport this weekend - when a plane needs to be parked somewhere on the tarmac or go in for maintenance after a flight, who moves the plane?

The guy with the little truck and towbar?

I wasn't sure if it needs someone in the cockpit though.

Yes, jj, someone does have to be in the cockpit when the plane is being towed. When I worked at ACA, some of the mechanics were checked out and legal to taxi the planes (instead of using a tug). Sometimes, pilots would be told to taxi a plane from one point on the airport to another. This became a bone of contention and ultimately the pilot group agreed to perform such repositions for 0.2 hours of pay. I did many of these (for free) when I was chief pilot and I'd take one of our interns along to ride in the right seat.

I'm pretty sure that at Delta all the planes are moved using tugs.