The BEA wants to link those two pieces of the CVR ... I don't think they go together.
What is "... de vitesse" linked to?
I agree with your (1) and (2) on stall warning. RE: the Air Caraïbes memo - Airbus could have more strongly opposed the Captain's 'intime persuasion'. I.e. the warning was "appropriate", even if it did not require specific action in the circumstances.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 11th Apr 2012 at 15:50.
I'll start. I'm a US FAA certified narrowbody Airbus Captain with experience (DC9, not AB) in functional check test flying.
And I am a nobody who knows nothing (except what I've learned in this fab forum) who also pushes almost as many buttons as you guys do when I play my Hammond B-3 organ. (Yes, we get flying sometimes.) When I get confused/lost/push the wrong switch, I live to tell the tale.
Always wanted to fly. Never could afford the lessons. Been following jet transport issues since the early 70s. I really appreciate being allowed to hang in here with you experts, and occasionally contribute all I can bring to the party: good common sense.
British Gliding Association (BGA) safety committee member, some experience of gliding accident analysis, current glider pilot and lapsed PPL.
I cannot claim any knowledge of CAT flying, but I do know something about glider flying and gliding training, and also something about gliding accidents and what surviving pilots have said on occasion.
And the reason I followed this from the outset through all threads – when a stressed pilot forms the wrong conclusion, he/she tends to stay with it regardless of ineffective attempts to correct the wrong problem. I have seen this in my field (gliding safety and accident analysis) – only test pilots, or rare individuals, can keep a clear head and systematically fault find.
The "model we are assembling" since the crash matches to your comment.
only test pilots, or rare individuals, can keep a clear head and systematically fault find.
I personally had few incidents where this was observed. I started the observations 50 years ago and with maturity, experience and training (to develop methods) the "clear head and systematically fault find" was possible. And worked (and works) very well. In different types of machines sometimes in extreme and dangerous situations. Problem is when "things happens fast" Your chances dim very fast if initial solutions not the best. Fortunately i always had chances. Invariably staying "ahead". Even "ahead" i faced a surprise testing a car 19 years ago. (At night, light rain, concerned with a family member disease and a subtle hidden fault in a tire, aggravated by a little error ).
As I hinted at in a post near the end of the previous thread, I have put together a customized Google Search Engine that will find your Search Term in an individual PPRuNe AF447 Forum thread, or if selected, in a search of all of the threads.
The Google search engine returns pages containing variations on a search term, e.g. the term 'site' [without the quotes] will also give hits on 'position, location' etc.. While a term in quotes, "tcas ra occurred before" will return hits only for pages that contain that term exactly.
There are, or have been 13 substantive PPRuNe Forum threads covering the total AF447 event saga, and one small one I found started in the Jet Blast Forum when the initial Air France A330-200 Missing thread was going 'mad'. The above search engine covers those threads that have made their way eventually into the Tech Log, plus the original Air France A330-200 Missing thread which remained in the Rumours and News Forum and was closed.
Joined the fray just after the crash. Just interested in any FBW plane that has a problem. Thot I could learn something and maybe pass on some lessons-learned from the genesis of FBW flight controls.
Flew 600 +/- hours in first operational FBW jet from 1979 to 1984. Was staff puke or would have flown a lot more. Total time 4,000 hours +/- in F-101B, F102A, A-37A/B, A-7D and F-16A/B. 600 combat hours with about 400 combat missions.
Considering it is just after the PNF comment "On a perdu les vitesses" it could be seen as an ackowledgement for the unreliable airspeed status, but in first intention "On n'a pas une bonne annonce ..." was IMO specifically directed to the STALL warning, not the speed.
Where I do ask questions following the Air Caraibes memo is here :
Originally Posted by Air Caraibes memo - P13
In addition, Airbus engineers have understood all the difficulty encountered by the crew for a rapid and effective implementation of the UNRELIABLE SPEED INDICATION procedure. They agreed to the admissibility of our remarks and reflect therefore on a modification for the checklists.
The memo is 6 months prior AF447 - As a Manufacturer Airbus has many ways to communicate directly with the crews all over the world to dispatch safety information but nothing was done for that matter.
To answer TTex600 suggestion : Very much interested in accident reports, try to learn from other's mistakes before I do them. Looking for the full story not only the convenient part. Have no trust left in the BEA but everybody knew it. Flying for close to 25 years, 12 on the 330, but flew Boeing too.
I would say that none of the issues identified by CONF iture are actually of major importance in the cause of the accident and some can be said to be irrelevant. The cause of the accident is unfortunately the flight crew who did not respond in an appropriate manner to the situation. I also wonder about all this mistrust of BEA - surely this is misplaced especially as the courts are involved? Having read several BEA reports they have always struck me as models of professionalism
When investigating EVERYTHING must be considered. The final report is to be released. So we can ssume the investigation didn't finish yet. CONF iture listed possible contributing factors that could together represent important elements to the result.
The cause of the accident is unfortunately the flight crew who did not respond in an appropriate manner to the situation.
It seems, but need more information to say this We just don't have all "inputs" they received. And we don't know everything the machine "presented" to them. (to the crew).
I also wonder about all this mistrust of BEA
Having read several BEA reports they have always struck me as models of professionalism
It seems to me BEA could do better (just before Paris air show).It seems difficult to have all steps done at this time. It seems they became vulnerable since then.
Let's wait (being prepared to) to see the Final report.
* As you know, an accident statistically has multiple factors involved. Frequently the trigger is not a crew error. And a prepared crew could in many cases, save the day. And the opposite is true:
the zipper shape of the selected V/S trace BEFORE AP DISC
IMO you can skip this concern from the list.
The 'zipper' means it is - not active - (AP was in ALT HLD mode not in V/S mode) You can notice identical 'zippers' to est. slide slip trace - after law change - de estimated slide slip is not calculated in ALT LAW.
The selected MACH trace - Page 109/110 BEA IR#3 EN - shows the 'zipper' too. This trace for whole flight @ page 110 shows dark area but actually these are 'zippers'.
Also 'zippers' on the other parameters related to AS when these were NCD.
Why - the not active state - is reflected as zipper I don't know, maybe due to a reset signal to distinct from a steady 0 value?
RR-NDB It seems to me that a post in response to Lyman is relevant here. Sometimes it is necessary to look at things x1 not x10,000. This is the case here. Ruling out the options is a common process in an investigation. The issues here would revolve around certain individuals' wish states not an objective look at the actual circumstances and occurences of the accident. It is also possible to be too sceptical and too cynical - if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck chances are it is a duck. There is no need to invent other reasons for what is an accident based on pilot reactions, lack of adherence to SOPs, poor to non-existant CRM, no designated chain of command, training issues and possible cultural issues within Air France.
Last edited by Old Carthusian; 12th Apr 2012 at 09:45.
"On n'a pas une bonne annonce ... de vitesse" cannot imply anything else than a display AFAIK. What do you have in mind, regarding an "announcement" ??
But it is not : "On n'a pas une bonne annonce ... de vitesse"
It is : "On n'a pas une bonne annonce ..." 4 seconds later "... de vitesse"
The BEA wants to link those two pieces of the CVR ... I don't think they go together.
Later on the ON/OFF status of that STALL WRN without any notable change in the aircraft state confirmed to the crew that something was definitely wrong with that warning.
CONFiture has a point, and it's a good catch!
I can think of several words to use to describe the "visual" display of speed in French, but none of them would be "annonce", as "annonce" implies "sound". Indeed, the association of "annonce" with "de vitesse" makes no sense, or a lot less sense, than the association with the "Stall Warning", as the speed was NOT communicated using "sound", while the "Stall Warning" was.
O C may have been fortunate in his selection of pilots. All appear never to have been wrong. Admittedly prior to CRM, I must have flown with more than a hundred airline pilots, some of whom learned from their own and doubtless the mistakes of others - possibly even some of mine ! My first CFI was the Chief Test Pilot of a Midlands aircraft manufacturer who would not allow me to go solo until I could stall and spin - and to recover !
Later I was to fly with perhaps eight graduates of the Empire Test Pilots School who had decided to become long-haul charter pilots. Two of them thanked me for teaching them to be First Officers. (By implication this had not been in their syllabus.) Both were kind enough not to say that they had learned from my bad example. ( I had myself, learned from watching a few bad examples over the years, the York captain who swung off the runway onto boggy grass by harsh engine handling, or the Captain who applied brakes when only the nose-wheel had landed !)
A look at the report on F-WWKH show what CAN happen with a well qualified crew anticipating and by day.
Last edited by Linktrained; 12th Apr 2012 at 16:48.