[cmurf]

Are you a pilot? If so what are your qualifications?

Have you read the ET302 preliminary report? In particular have you read page 25, section 2 "Initial findings" last bullet which I quote:

The crew performed runaway stabilizer checklist and put the stab trim cutout switch to cutout position and confirmed that the manual trim operation was not working.

How can you read that, and say multiple times in this thread "improper procedure"? On what basis?

You have no idea how much mental discipline it's taking me, as a pilot, to refrain from ad hominem attack. Your arguments are that bad, they are that willfully contrary to the available facts.

[CorvusCrypto]

I get it. I understand everyone's frustration. In similar fashion I understand how unlikely it is a crew would have the mental capacity to deal with stick shakers, GPWS callouts, and still fix the problem and that is the tragedy here. However the report said they followed proper procedure but look at the data. 95% N1, turning auto trim on and off a few times, the last time causing the huge -2G bump. There also is not enough data to us yet to determine they did regain control of the plane before enabling electric trim again. I don't think in the case of runaway trim you are supposed to keep switching the cutoff and leave your plane above Vmo. Something doesn't add up according to the data imo.

[cmurf]

This is such a bullshit response. You don't answer any of my questions. You proceed to armchair pilot. You use terms you cannot completely understand from a big picture yet claim to come at this from a big picture perspective. That's so out of order.

Do you know a power reduction causes a nose down moment and actually makes the problem worse?

What does "turning auto trim on and off" mean? Are you referring to the you're toggle it the stab trim switches flipped between normal and cutoff? If the latter you are wrong, zero evidence that happened a few times.

There was no -2 G vertical acceleration.

What you are doing is in my view a mental disturbance. You are using terms as if you know what you're talking about. You don't. You are a bullshitter.

Please stop.

[CorvusCrypto]

Okay. Calm down for 1. Also the prelim data is there to review. The graph shows clearly there's a large plunge and there absolutely was a negative g report in the prelim showing that at the final few moments the trim settings from the FCC gave another correction. As for the cutoff, the report annotations tell you when they toggled the cutout switch. I went back and yeah actually you're right it was only once to cutoff and back to normal sorry for that mistake. However the overspeed is still supported from the data and yes the data shows vertical g forces and at the end there was a lurch of -2 Gs before total loss. It's on page 27.

As for less speed causing more nose down moment, yeah but at the same time they weren't in a descent for that portion either, nor were they nose down (this from page 26). The data shows they were oscillating though climbing slightly while they were overspeeding. In this case it could have helped to reduce the forces at play. I think it was more that they were just busy and left thrust settings where they were from takeoff.