PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - AF 447 Thread No. 5
View Single Post
Old 4th Aug 2011, 21:42
  #1554 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 61
Posts: 5,587
... why would the crew speak twice of Altitude, than finally, "hoping a Pull Up, we are at 4000".
What matters is what they think of what THEY spoke!
"@[email protected]" one second after the other.
I've called out altitudes in a descent as an alert to a PF more than once. Tone of voice will vary with situation.
Does one of them not 'get' the VSI, and someone is trying to REMIND? At 8000, than 4000 feet? To me, and it is a GUESS, it means they are worried about Overspeed, ... why, In my opinion, they were not speaking STALL!

As in: Captain : "N'est-ce pas possible!!" "****in A, we're STALLED"
Indeed, he may have been thinking that, but as I noted above, had to deal with the denial phase of a pear-shaped situation. He went about other tasks, as there were plenty to choose from, or so it may have appeared to him.
Three qualified Pilots ignore STALL WARNINGS and input near constant NOSE UP.
The fellow in the RHS seems to have done most of that, even with Monsieur Robert nagging him about his nose attitude. Somewhere in this discussion, I see some ideas that even after the control change, you had two people trying to move the control stick. That isn't good.
You are not mistaken at all. PF disabled PNF stick, using priority, during the last 10 seconds or so. Note that the last imputs from the PNF reverted also to nose down. The vast majority of his few imputs were ND anyway.
(This is Not Colgan for silly sakes)
I mentioned that to Dozy when he first brought it up. I agree with you on that.
"I think we have crazy speed!"
Is he saying "Way Fast" with no airspeed indication? Disorientation, evidence of.
Originally Posted by [B
HN[/B]] Correct, but don't forget that static pressures are affected also, reading high. Pitot minus static can become negative in extreme cases, as mentioned in one of the BEA reports.
Why is static reading high? Ice, or something else?

Smilin' Ed: OK, I see where you are coming from.

The computers/ADRs, it appears, cannot be trusted with the data in extreme conditions.
That may be true, but I don't think A330 was designed with "extreme flying" in mind.
Essentially airspeed has been given authority to outvote AOA (which we already knew from the stall warning fiasco) but this is not a good situation for present and future AOA installations in Airbus aircraft. This I consider to be a fundamental engineering error, but one that can fixed, probably by better software.
I use the word error, because AOA and airspeed are both fundamental aircraft performance data, but independent of each other and derived independently. To then mix them together and prioritize them is simply bad logic.
Food for thought.

To anyone puzzled by the nose-up 'pull' at 4000', I ask what exactly would you suggest they did instead at 4000' with around 10,000 fpm down? I think we are down to pretty basic human instinct here.
If nothing else was working, revert to basics. I might have done the same, if I didn't realize I was stalled. Try something, anything.
".the copilots had not received any training, at high altitude, in the “Unreliable IAS” procedure and manual aircraft handling."
Is this perfectly normal and would this apply to other airlines as well?
One hopes not.
... I keep wondering about the FD's. As you said, when reengaging, they take the altitude of the time as their new reference, and the horizontal bar will (with the plane diving down ) give an UP order to the pilot, who is trained to follow it.
They(the FDs) should have been switched off on both sides from the very moment when the loss of valid airspeed indications became clear to the pilots : emergency procedure on page 81

In fact they (the Fds) were not cut off, so the bars on the displays kept coming on, then off, and one wonders if the horizontal bar, which one is trained to following, was not one of the reasons the flying pilot kept pulling upwards ?
Food for thought.
Lonewolf_50 is offline