AF 447 Thread No. 7

[RR_NDB]

Man machine interface issue? "Stressing" Human Factors?

Hi,

gums:

So I will make my prediction that the final findings will conclude:

- Crew applied inappropriate control inputs for the existing flight condition when data was lost ( regardless of the failures of sensors and such)

- Flight instrument displays and aural warnings were confusing.

- Crew entered a stall and did not recognize the stall nor apply appropriate control inputs to recover. In other words, the plane did exactly what the crew was demanding.

- The report will demand better training and crew coordination during unusual flight conditions.

The "global picture" analysis seems correct. 1X as Turbine D properly emphasized:

Often, most failure analysis can be determined looking at things from a much broader perspective, 1X.

IMHO, under "unusual flight conditions" you need:

1) Reliable System "outputs". In your second point you put "...confusing"

2) "Graceful Degradation" and "Fault tolerance" from the System. There are indications the crew lost important (System) outputs during the "long" trajectory from apogee to SL:

Under full stall conditions, a number of sensors, and therefore their downstream services, would not be working correctly.

3) In your point #3 the "entering into the stall", "not recognition of it and lack of "correct perception" does not (could) suggest the need for a review of certain aspects of the "man machine interface"?

4) "Unusual flight conditions" were not partly derived from "UNUSUAL conditions" PF and PNF (clearly lacking proper training) were submitted from the environment outside and INSIDE the cockpit?

My comment on your question:

Am I way off base?

Is:

The "man machine interface" will be an important factor in this accident or the training, CRM, etc. should "compensate" it's (sometimes complex) characteristics?

PS

What i mean by "characteristics" is some "well known" issues observed in these "advanced flying Systems".

So a stall may not be easy to recognize, especially if the crew is trained that "you can't stall this airplane".

PS2

"Advanced flying Systems" currently uses "RIDICULOUS DESIGN" with respect to "air speed" anomalies (by non availability of adequate sensors) during transients (like occurred in this accident) . Still applying erroneously the very basic concept of Redundancy. And relied on (non properly trained) pilots to use "band aids" in (sometimes) "possible difficult situations" typical of daily commercial flights.

PS3

And I think some of the inputs from we non-commercial drivers have helped.

For sure!

PS4

Crew applied inappropriate control inputs

A fact!

Question:

In this case (a complex one) pilot (PF) error will be the cause? All "inputs" he received (before and during the flight) like training and System "outputs" will be considered important (for his actions)?