Just thought I'd post this to add to the knowledge base.
In May, 1997, an American Airlines A300 stalled while holding over Florida in the vicinity of thunderstorms.
What is interesting about this is that the very highly experienced crew thought they'd encountered windshear and so
were attempting the windshear escape maneuver (despite the fact that they were at 16,000'. While that was obviously
the incorrect response, it is not a surprising startle response given the repetitive training pilots get in windshear recovery, the thunderstorms in the area and the lack of stall training in the actual aircraft. They got into the stall without first getting a
stick shaker, then reacted to the perceived windshear encounter with their training. In actual fact, due to the A/T being
off without their knowledge, the aircraft had just slowed and stalled in the holding pattern.
They were approaching a line of thunderstorms and they both stated that they started encountering turbulence.
It turns out that the "turbulence" was stall buffet, but their preconception prevented them from realizing that
at the time.
It is interesting, also, in that, as a result of their actions, almost did not recover from the stall, and it was
really just luck along with max power that they happened to reduce the AoA long enough to recover, and that was partly due to other things going on at the time.
Again, this just goes to the point that it was about a lot more than stick and rudder skills. Those that say that need to do some research on human cognition and response mechanisms.
I think the implications on AF 447 are very clear here, and I would hope that the investigating authorities capture these issues.
First, I wish you would link to your source material so readers can check your facts. . I'm not suggesting that there is anything wrong with your American Airlines A300 story. . However, you've been less than meticulous on previous fact checking in this thread. . It's hard to tell here where your "facts" stop and your "opinions" begin, in this "knowledge base" you are adding to. . You don't differentiate in the above post between your copy-and-paste material and your own opinions. . We all make mistakes, and linking to our source material on a serious thread like this lets everyone (everyone inclined to take the time) evaluate the source, credibility and consistency of our major underlying claims. . Is this another Popular Mechanics article, or did your material come from a credible aviation journal? . Was it written from your memory? . Below is a valuable contribution Chris made, with what we who have actually done this type of work call, an "authoritative source". . We cite sources to weed out all the WAG practitioners.