Originally Posted by
ptarmigan
This is the common perception of this accident, and one I used to share as well. However, many pilots will simply not recognize a real stall when it happens to them outside of the training environment, and that is a sad fact. Reading it again, maybe we are not saying something so different. Once a person has created a mental model of the aircraft state confirmation bias kicks in so to that extent it true that they will ignore cues.
What I like about q-alpha is that it prevents the errant mental model in the first place. Ideally you have that an an AoA gauge that you are trained on.
ptarmigan,
Q-alpha video:
A circle of lights changing color and a mechanical voice calling attention to an airspeed problem.
What's the difference between that and either (or both) PF and PM noting the airspeed problem on their airspeed indicator while the PM constantly repeats "airspeed" until a correction?
Same question for the stall recognition and entry into stick-shaker. How is the "errant mental model" going to be prevented any more effectively? Why is a voice announcing "stall" and a red circle of lights is any more effective than a stick-shaker, airspeed indicator in the red-zipper and pitch at the PLI.
Pilots manage to ignore audible gear warning systems now and then. I don't see why this system is any different. It seems to me that it has the potential to put the PF or perhaps the whole crew into audio overload as they try to communicate effectively to resolve the situation with that thing blaring constantly in their ears.