Narrative:

We had been assigned the ILS 9R into phl. ATC cleared us for the approach; and told us to maintain 170 KTS until a 5 mile final; caution wake turbulence you are following an A330 heavy. Glideslope was captured and 3;000 ft was set as the missed approach altitude. Next; the controller asked us to slow further to 150 KTS for wake turbulence avoidance. We complied. Next; the controller says 'this isn't working; I've lost wake turbulence separation; turn left heading 360; descend and maintain 2;000 ft.' pilot flying selected heading 360 and heading mode; 2;000 ft was selected and flch. Next the controller tells us to climb and maintain 3;000 ft. 3;000 ft is now selected in flch. The aircraft was still descending toward the initial 2;000 ft altitude assignment; when 3;000 ft was assigned. After 3;000 ft and flch were selected the aircraft continued to descend; and made no changes to indicate that it was going to initiate the climb to 3;000 ft. In fact the aircraft was continuing to descend through 2;100 ft and did not seem to be adjusting its vertical descent rate; appearing as though it would have continued a descent through 2;000 ft. Autopilot and autothrottles were being utilized to this point. Pilot flying determined that automation was not responding to the inputs it had been given; and in fact was doing the opposite of what had been requested. At this point the pilot flying disengaged the autopilot and pressed the toga buttons. The aircraft went to a nose-up pitch attitude and airspeed started bleeding off. In the middle of this ATC gives us a new heading; and tells us to maintain 170 KTS. Pilot not flying says unable. Pilot flying is fighting against the nose-up attitude; thrust and decreasing airspeed; and maintaining the 360 degree heading. Now the stick shaker fires and pilot flying executes the stall recovery procedure with firewall thrust. The recovery procedure almost seems to have exacerbated the problem. During the recovery procedure the aircraft continued to climb; recovery and level flight were achieved at 4;000. ATC then instructed us to maintain 3;000 ft when able; and I believe we were given a heading and or airspeed at this time too. The pilot not flying responded timely to all ATC instructions and the pilot flying executed all ATC instructions promptly. Upon completion of this flight the crew was scheduled for a deadhead. During the flight I reviewed the fom and SOP to see what follow-up and communication was required. Upon arrival at the hotel; I notified the dispatcher who was assigned this flight. To the best of their ability; knowledge; and training the first officer and I complied with the F.a.right's and company south.O.P.'s. I would suggest the following: 1. Don't let ATC paint you into a corner. ATC had created a bad situation; and we were the solution to their problem. 2. Could have told ATC 'unable'; 1 to 2 instructions prior to when we did. 3. Instead of using toga; just disconnect the autothrottles and placed them in the detent. 4. Trim would have helped; but it seemed impossible to use with one hand on the thrust levers; and the other fighting the control forces. 5. Utilize tcs to reverse the trend; while the automation catches up to the inputs. 6. In addition to the go-around scenarios which are trained in the simulator; incorporate a situation like this into the loft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An air carrier crew reported that PHL ATC did not provide adequate wake turbulence separation and when the crew executed a missed approach the aircraft failed to climb and accelerate but instead descended; decelerated and activated the stall warning before finally recovering.

Narrative: We had been assigned the ILS 9R into PHL. ATC cleared us for the approach; and told us to maintain 170 KTS until a 5 mile final; caution wake turbulence you are following an A330 Heavy. Glideslope was captured and 3;000 FT was set as the missed approach altitude. Next; the Controller asked us to slow further to 150 KTS for wake turbulence avoidance. We complied. Next; the Controller says 'this isn't working; I've lost wake turbulence separation; turn left heading 360; descend and maintain 2;000 FT.' Pilot flying selected heading 360 and heading mode; 2;000 FT was selected and FLCH. Next the Controller tells us to climb and maintain 3;000 FT. 3;000 FT is now selected in FLCH. The aircraft was still descending toward the initial 2;000 FT altitude assignment; when 3;000 FT was assigned. After 3;000 FT and FLCH were selected the aircraft continued to descend; and made no changes to indicate that it was going to initiate the climb to 3;000 FT. In fact the aircraft was continuing to descend through 2;100 FT and did not seem to be adjusting its vertical descent rate; appearing as though it would have continued a descent through 2;000 FT. Autopilot and autothrottles were being utilized to this point. Pilot flying determined that automation was not responding to the inputs it had been given; and in fact was doing the opposite of what had been requested. At this point the pilot flying disengaged the autopilot and pressed the TOGA buttons. The aircraft went to a nose-up pitch attitude and airspeed started bleeding off. In the middle of this ATC gives us a new heading; and tells us to maintain 170 KTS. Pilot not flying says unable. Pilot flying is fighting against the nose-up attitude; thrust and decreasing airspeed; and maintaining the 360 degree heading. Now the stick shaker fires and pilot flying executes the stall recovery procedure with firewall thrust. The recovery procedure almost seems to have exacerbated the problem. During the recovery procedure the aircraft continued to climb; recovery and level flight were achieved at 4;000. ATC then instructed us to maintain 3;000 FT when able; and I believe we were given a heading and or airspeed at this time too. The pilot not flying responded timely to all ATC instructions and the pilot flying executed all ATC instructions promptly. Upon completion of this flight the crew was scheduled for a deadhead. During the flight I reviewed the FOM and SOP to see what follow-up and communication was required. Upon arrival at the hotel; I notified the Dispatcher who was assigned this flight. To the best of their ability; knowledge; and training the First Officer and I complied with the F.A.R's and company S.O.P.'s. I would suggest the following: 1. Don't let ATC paint you into a corner. ATC had created a bad situation; and we were the solution to their problem. 2. Could have told ATC 'unable'; 1 to 2 instructions prior to when we did. 3. Instead of using TOGA; just disconnect the autothrottles and placed them in the detent. 4. Trim would have helped; but it seemed impossible to use with one hand on the thrust levers; and the other fighting the control forces. 5. Utilize TCS to reverse the trend; while the automation catches up to the inputs. 6. In addition to the go-around scenarios which are trained in the simulator; incorporate a situation like this into the LOFT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.