Originally Posted by jcjeant
my feeling is:
The pilots were rated on type ... but nevertheless were not qualified for the situation of AF447 was
They had not knowledge of basic flying skills
They don't know how the Airbus systems work
So we can conclude that:
The formation and training of those pilots is very low
So Air France bear all the responsibility for this accident by not providing adequate training to their pilots or not detecting by exams (simulator) that those pilots were not qualified for fly a Airbus A330
At least and even if this above is not entirely true .. Air France stay bear the responsibility of this accident as the contract between Air France and their passengers was to transport them from A to B and they failed....
Are my feelings good ?
Certainly not.
Placed on the very same situation, but with hindsight about the outcome, most pilots, including any member of AF447 crew would certainly not make the same errors : basically, they would understand quickly that they will stall, or that they are already stalling, then certainly they will act properly to recover. Nonetheless, everything is pointing that this did not happen during this night.
Maybe, this very same scenario, played in the simulator (up to the point it could play it), with the same crew could have ended differently... who knows? Maybe the PF records during his sim checks was also near perfect? So the basic question of the investigation is to address the real security issues, not to find who seems "guilty" of what.
As for the level of civil responsability to be shared between the manufacturer, the company or the crew, honestly, this should be left to the court to decide. In the future, we'll be certainly allowed to comment its conclusion to the death. As a matter of fact, for me so far, any actor involved is possibly responsible of something wrong in the process leading to this catastrophe. But then, I need first to understand what it was exactly and why he was acting like that.
Hi HazelNuts,
Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
I wonder on what consideration you base that assumption. On the basis of how a pitot tube 'works', it is not plausible at all. The BEA Update speaks of 'a sharp fall from about 275 kt to 60 knots in the speed displayed on the left PFD, then a few moments later on the ISIS'. The Air Caraibes Memo speaks of 'une diminution tres rapide de la CAS'. On the basis of the ACARS Fault message PROBE PITOT, BEA's Interim no.1 attributes the initiating event to 'a decrease of more than 30 kt in one second of the polled speed value'.
Spot on!
Now that everything is showing that stuff involving AP & THS fantasy laws are not worth the bandwith, we should go back to the basics of Unreliable Airpseed Events... if we really want to understand what kind of situation was faced by AF447 crew, and possibly discuss what could have confused the PF and crew. PJ2, Chris Scott and few others have already tried (more than once) to bring back this thread on the cockpit confusion (hence, ergonomics and interface issues) but it looks much less sexy than talking about any Airbus Systems getting confused.
Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
According to the Update, between 2:10:16 and 2:10:50 'the speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.86)'. At 2:11:06 the speed on the ISIS increased sharply towards 185 kt, and was then consistent with the other recorded speed.
If one of the PFD's had been switched to ADR3, would that be recorded on the DFDR?
I guess that what is recorded is ADR1 & 3 airspeed channel, independently from where it is displayed (hence the choice of ADR3 instead of 2 as it could be displayed to Captain's PFD). Note, your typo about 215 kt (Mach 0.86)?!