AF 447 Thread No. 11
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HN39 you got it just right i reckon.
Since we first started flying it has been about using the right tool for the job and knowing which one to use. e.g.
EGPWS - Pull stick to back stop and you are doing all the laws of physics will allow to avoid the terrain.
Loss of air data - Fly a sensible power an attitude, if in doubt keep what you have until PNF gets something concrete from the QRH
No rule set changes required just a knowledge about the right tool for the job as you would on any other machine.
Since we first started flying it has been about using the right tool for the job and knowing which one to use. e.g.
EGPWS - Pull stick to back stop and you are doing all the laws of physics will allow to avoid the terrain.
Loss of air data - Fly a sensible power an attitude, if in doubt keep what you have until PNF gets something concrete from the QRH
No rule set changes required just a knowledge about the right tool for the job as you would on any other machine.
Last edited by busTRE; 17th Jun 2013 at 13:20.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AZR - since you appear to be having difficulty reading and understanding posts, let me copy the NTA quote to which I referred i the hope you MIGHT understand this time:
"Its not the crew, the airlines or the training. All airlines train and all crews are trained - it is the type of training that needs to be reviewed. "
Any better?
"I'm not aware of a long list of "AB events such as 447..." Nor am I and nor did I say that. See above.
"but I fail to see how a modification to the protection system would be sensible." - me too - see above.
HN39 - same difficulty? I have passed no comment on the wisdom of "In those situations being able to pull without fear of stalling must be an asset." - I agree - so I presume I can ignore the rest of your post after you 'quoted' me?
"Its not the crew, the airlines or the training. All airlines train and all crews are trained - it is the type of training that needs to be reviewed. "
Any better?
"I'm not aware of a long list of "AB events such as 447..." Nor am I and nor did I say that. See above.
"but I fail to see how a modification to the protection system would be sensible." - me too - see above.
HN39 - same difficulty? I have passed no comment on the wisdom of "In those situations being able to pull without fear of stalling must be an asset." - I agree - so I presume I can ignore the rest of your post after you 'quoted' me?
Moderator
Thread Starter
Folks, can we keep the basic credo in the landing lights ? - play the ball, not the player.
This in an extremely interesting thread .. at risk of being devalued by getting into gutter tit for tat.
I would hope that censorship is not the way to go but, should that become evident, it shall occur.
This in an extremely interesting thread .. at risk of being devalued by getting into gutter tit for tat.
I would hope that censorship is not the way to go but, should that become evident, it shall occur.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
Quoting it again isn't going to make it mean anything. This point says its not the training. It then goes on to wonder if its the type of training. Well, if its the wrong type of training, then it is the training. As with much of NTA's material it is self contradictory and thus meaningless. I wonder whether that is what AZR is driving at and thus not deserving of a cheap attack at his literacy.
FWIW I believe the training was faulty in the past, in that it did not address power/attitudes appropriate to high level and consequences of inappropriate handling at typical cruise altitudes. It does now in most TRTOs.
"Its not the crew, the airlines or the training. All airlines train and all crews are trained - it is the type of training that needs to be reviewed. "
FWIW I believe the training was faulty in the past, in that it did not address power/attitudes appropriate to high level and consequences of inappropriate handling at typical cruise altitudes. It does now in most TRTOs.
Last edited by busTRE; 17th Jun 2013 at 15:02.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I appreciate AZR is 'located' in France, in English, 'type of training' is a quite specific expansion of 'training'.
Parse the following?
"I am trained"
"I am properly trained"
Parse the following?
"I am trained"
"I am properly trained"
I don't understand why you gentlemen think you do not need AOA indicators.
There are times when its appropriate to fly the attitude and times when it's appropriate to fly alpha.
How do I know they had no ATT info?
speed will vary depending upon gross weight and configuration
I do not understand the question.
Forget meaningless time in the sim and trying to land on the piano keys.
Fully held off landings seem to be a thing of the past except on 2 airlines mainly crewed by "real pilots". WHY.
Last edited by Clandestino; 17th Jun 2013 at 15:18.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi BOAC.
Once again, I won't critisize the current or past training as I have no indication that it was wrong re: the flight laws and the consequences of their reversion from Normal to Alternate and/or Direct.
I was under the impression that you were advocating that laws and their reversions were somehow "too hard to learn" for (average) pilots and thus that they should be modified in one way or another.
If that was not your point, sorry for misinterpreting your previous posts. I reacted on that because AFAIK the FCOM and other training materials already were explicit on the laws reversions, and associated loss of protections. Without access to more than those materials, I will not comment on training outside of the said materials.
I certainly won't challenge your feelings on the (type of) training needed.
++
AZR
Once again, I won't critisize the current or past training as I have no indication that it was wrong re: the flight laws and the consequences of their reversion from Normal to Alternate and/or Direct.
I was under the impression that you were advocating that laws and their reversions were somehow "too hard to learn" for (average) pilots and thus that they should be modified in one way or another.
If that was not your point, sorry for misinterpreting your previous posts. I reacted on that because AFAIK the FCOM and other training materials already were explicit on the laws reversions, and associated loss of protections. Without access to more than those materials, I will not comment on training outside of the said materials.
I certainly won't challenge your feelings on the (type of) training needed.
++
AZR
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
I presume I can ignore the rest of your post after you 'quoted' me?
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 17th Jun 2013 at 15:50.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AZR
I was under the impression that you were advocating that laws and their reversions were somehow "too hard to learn" for (average) pilots and thus that they should be modified in one way or another.
In terms of a 'modification' I would not really know where to start. I suggested a long time ago (PGF) that from my point of view (non-AB) I would have preferred a drop straight into 'Direct' where you know you simply have a basic aeroplane in your hands which, it is hoped, one can fly. Thus none of the (eg) 'divergence' of roll law from pitch law which I understand happens as the laws degrade - all or nothing for me.
Originally Posted by HN39
The single 'rule of flying' that I see is that in general you should not rely on the protections because they may not always be present.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BOAC
Was the 447 PF 'relying' on some electronic guardian angel to look after him while he (following the FD?), zoom climbed and then tried to keep the nose up?
I've no experience with FD's but note that they were mostly unavailable in the first 40 seconds of the zoom-climb, and locked on to 6000 fpm V/S then 1400 fpm only after the pilot commanded those RoC's apparently independently of the FD's.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Assuming you have 'finished'? -
- why? We believe, do we not, that all altimeters were functioning normally?
Originally Posted by NTA
All we need now is a standby altimeter that is working
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- not quite. I was suggesting that just as 'mode confusion' is a well-established derivative of our automotive cockpit, so reversionary modes could be causing confusion when infrequently experienced, and then only when things have 'gone wrong' and commonly (outside the sim) with genuine 'startle factor'.
In terms of a 'modification' I would not really know where to start. I suggested a long time ago (PGF) that from my point of view (non-AB) I would have preferred a drop straight into 'Direct' where you know you simply have a basic aeroplane in your hands which, it is hoped, one can fly. Thus none of the (eg) 'divergence' of roll law from pitch law which I understand happens as the laws degrade - all or nothing for me.
- The existence of alternate laws comes from Airbus studies, so it is a conscious and maturely weighed decision (until proven otherwise).
- We do have exemple where the alternate law was appreciated: I mentioned the book "QF32" written by the Captain (and PIC) of this flight, but for those who do not have a copy, you can read the interview with Captain David Evans (Senior Check Captain at Qantas), who was onboard too. Both have experience on Boeing and Airbus types. Here is a short excerpt:
ASChan: What’s your opinion of the A380’s survivability compared to other types you have flown?
DE: Well I think the Airbus A380 – it’s a testament to the aircraft that we managed to get the aeroplane successfully on to the ground. The fly-by-wire system, albeit with the damage we were in an alternate law, it still was very flyable. Now comparing that to other types I have flown I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I’m sure.
DE: Well I think the Airbus A380 – it’s a testament to the aircraft that we managed to get the aeroplane successfully on to the ground. The fly-by-wire system, albeit with the damage we were in an alternate law, it still was very flyable. Now comparing that to other types I have flown I am sure that Boeing types would have been equally flyable, but they would have been a lot more difficult, I’m sure.
EXCLUSIVE - Qantas QF32 flight from the cockpit | Aerospace | The Royal Aeronautical Society
Originally Posted by BOAC
I was suggesting that just as 'mode confusion' is a well-established derivative of our automotive cockpit, so reversionary modes could be causing confusion when infrequently experienced, and then only when things have 'gone wrong' and commonly (outside the sim) with genuine 'startle factor'.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: London
Age: 56
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Natstrackalpha
Taking some of your points in turn:
You have zero, absolutely zero evidence of this. It is extremely unlikely that the attitude indication was affected and the report offers no evidence to suggest it was.
There is. Its flying power and attitude.
How would this have improved anything. I think the difference between alternate and direct is a red herring. If you are flying too high an attitude it makes no difference if you are in alternate or direct law. Plus. Its as easy to fly an improper attitude in direct as it is in alternate.
A standby altimeter would be subject to the same limitations or effects as the main ones. They have a standby altimeter. So what would another one gain you.
Likewise a standby attitude indicator, all appeared to be working, they had a standby and what would another one add?
Taking some of your points in turn:
the crew were unaware of the att
MUST be a get you out of trouble card.
a red button returned everything to direct law immediately
a standby altimeter that is working
Likewise a standby attitude indicator, all appeared to be working, they had a standby and what would another one add?
Last edited by busTRE; 17th Jun 2013 at 18:43.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOAC
- why? We believe, do we not, that all altimeters were functioning normally?
Last edited by Natstrackalpha; 17th Jun 2013 at 18:45.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Not far from the edge of the Milky Way Galaxy in the Orion Arm.
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guyz,
If they had an attitude indicator. why are we here?
If the A/H was operational, then, why did they not look at it? -
See? Their brains curdled into the system . . ?!
If they had looked at it - then they would have recovered the aircraft, instead they were looking at the glistening pinball machine in front of them.
Reminds me of Ka the snake in Jungle book.
If they had an attitude indicator. why are we here?
If the A/H was operational, then, why did they not look at it? -
See? Their brains curdled into the system . . ?!
If they had looked at it - then they would have recovered the aircraft, instead they were looking at the glistening pinball machine in front of them.
Reminds me of Ka the snake in Jungle book.
....and locked on to 6000 fpm V/S then 1400 fpm only after the pilot commanded those RoC's apparently independently of the FD's.
You are entirely correct that the pilot would have to be commanding a RoC independently of the FDs for the FDs to default to that RoC when the FDs returned (which the FDs indeed do).
The point you may want to consider is that the FD pitch steering will command an attitude that will provide for the specific RoC in effect at the FD return, in fact the current existing attitude, at least initially.
If the airspeed is continuing to decay, the FD will command a successively higher pitch attitude to meet the Roc requirement that was in effect upon FD recovery.
This commanded continual pitch increase is eventually unsustainable....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, thanks, I understand that.
Figure 69 in the Final Report shows the PF Side Stick Position and the FD Pitch Order.
The graph I reposted in #61 shows the PF Side Stick Position and the Pitch Attitude.
My reply #58 reflects my opinion that the latter shows a closer correlation than the former.
Figure 69 in the Final Report shows the PF Side Stick Position and the FD Pitch Order.
The graph I reposted in #61 shows the PF Side Stick Position and the Pitch Attitude.
My reply #58 reflects my opinion that the latter shows a closer correlation than the former.