Originally Posted by
RetiredF4
Why shold he ask? What would have triggered him? Why should one assume, that the PF is applying backstick in a situation, where it is not appropriate?
For starters because the aircraft has started to climb, and vertical speed has increased from +1500fpm to +4-5000fpm in a matter of seconds. They had discussed altitude and decided not to go any higher than the level they were at because of the weather. Autopilot is off - who else could be causing the climb?
You ask because communication is a tool that's given to you before you can even pronounce the word "aeroplane". Even if you've got a yoke in front of you, unless you're in a life-and-death situation (which this wasn't at that point), you should take it gently, follow through and verbally confirm what you're feeling before you try to take over. I've never heard of a successful recovery requiring handing over of control where one pilot simply grabbed the controls from the other - except in instances where the other pilot was clearly incapacitated.
But he didnīt get the clue, otherwise he would have asked or even he would have taken over the aircraft like you mentioned, correct?
He did try to correct the PF verbally, so it's reasonable to assume he realised, or at least felt that something was wrong. I'm not an expert, but his speech pattern seems to indicate indecision. The captain has put the PF in charge - if the PNF takes over before the captain arrives, will it reflect badly on him if it turns out to be unnecessary? Perhaps he felt that correcting the PF verbally until the captain arrived would be the safest path to take
Maybe he was thinking some kind of updraft, some kind of misreading altitude (speed was gone, why shouldnīt VS and altitude not be affected)?
Well, for a start I don't think there's an updraft in existence that could cause a heavy widebody to climb like that, plus an updraft wouldn't necessarily cause the pitch to increase.
If he knew his systems then he'd be aware that altitude and VS rely on a completely different set of sensors (static ports) than airspeed (pitot tubes), and it was unlikely both would have been affected.
Maybe the unloading gave him the impression, that PF is doing the right thing.
I don't think G-loading is as integral to the scan in an airliner is it is in a fighter. It'd definitely be secondary to ADI, altimeter, VS and airspeed.
We donīt know what he was thinking, what he was "guessing". But he couldnīt see the SS input and he didnīt ask, and he didnīt get to the right decision, that one we do know.
We also know, as I said above, that he tried to correct the PF verbally several times before the Captain arrived - he clearly didn't think things were going well. The next logical step would have been to take control, and he did try just before the Captain arrived, but didn't follow through - and the PF took back control unannounced a few seconds later
@jcj - The Airbus Service Bulletin was binding in terms of the work being *required*, not recommended - and the work having to be done by a given date. An Airworthiness Directive is the next level up where the type is effectively grounded until the work is done, and that wasn't really necessary in this case. ADs are only used when a fault is so severe that it is likely to result in the loss of the aircraft every time it occurs. The successful recoveries that pre-dated AF447 prove that this was not the case.