Originally Posted by jcjeant
This air chief pilot quote is in a video (in french) posted earlier in this thread
Thanks, now we found out it is Airbus chief test pilot, mr Rosay, could now someone please translate what he actually said, for the benefit of us not understanding French?
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Do you think this behavior normal ?
I'll refrain from definitive judgment, as I don't feel qualified enough to draw the line of normality. However, on normality scale, finding UAS so ordinary to not even report it is far, far more normal than trying to climb the aeroplane above its ceiling just because airspeed indication got messed up.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
This is in contradiction with the rules
How would anyone know what the rules were? The data is de-identified, you don't know whether there was safety management system with compulsory/confidential reporting scheme in the place at the time of the occurrences, let alone what airline did the alleged offenders fly for.
Rest of your post is completely irrelevant to AF447; it refers to earlier replacement of Rosemount probes with either Goodrich or Thales. Yup, Thales probes were found to be superior to Rosemount's.
Originally Posted by Lyman
This is iPad Facto from the releases, and not a clear finding, certainly not expressed in this way.
This statement of yours is radically at odds with the truth, as what I mentioned is clearly stated on page 65 of interim2. Interim doesn't mean it is not official. Just not final. Yet.
Originally Posted by Lyman
If this statement is casually accurate, the fault is with the regulator, via the airline. The airline is responsible, in an agency, for the regulations. The Pilots, as representatives of the line, are the visible ones, but to understand "unfazed" the culture at AF is on the hook.
The airline is not identified in the report. Your notion it's AF might eventually turn out to be correct but for the time being it's pure conjecture.
Originally Posted by Lyman
We also have not seen a procedure to follow.
Anyone suffering from this condition can be quickly and efficiently cured by gazing upon interim1, page 69 or interim3, page 59.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Where did you get that about Yuri Gagarin?
In the article about spatial disorientation, published in internal air force magazine, some 23 years ago (if you wonder: my father was reserve captain in the army that started to crumble at the time so he could get away with sneaking away a few issues of GRViPVO to his aeroplane-crazy son). There was nice illustration, allegedly based on radar plot, of MiG-15 UTI entering the cloud, reversing its heading and completing two full spirals before hitting the ground. Point of the article, with which I fully concur, was that spatial disorientation can happen even to the best and most experienced pilots. That former fighter pilot can be offended by the suggestion is quite surprising to me. Frankly, I find it even a bit appalling.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
The whole circling thing was improvised on the spot from all appearances. Is it any wonder it didn't turn out well?
So how does it fit in with your "We are talking about trained airline pilots here" umbrage? He was astronaut, far better trained than any airline jockey, yet he died making what uninformed call "beginner's mistake".
Originally Posted by Machinbird
This looks like a Clandestino opinion piece.
Sure it is. It's my opinion based on DFDR readouts, precisely rendered on pages 29-31 of interim3. Where do you find fault in it?
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Everything I've read about PIO events indicates that it is like the aircraft suddenly seems to switch from a Dr. Jekyll to a Mr. Hyde personality
Again, I find such a notion coming form an carrier qualified ex-phantom driver a bit disturbing. Aeroplane doesn't change a bit, it is the unfortunate pilot that gets into phase with its oscillation.
Anyway, maximum roll before the aeroplane stalled was 11°, which can be called significant only by severe stretch of imagination. However, from DFDR data it is pretty clear that CM2 actively and successfully dampened the roll, therefore he was very aware of the aeroplane's bank so we can lay the theory "he did not see instruments" to rest.
Originally Posted by Lyman
Has anyone here had a singular experience in the sim, without help, in UAS recovery, though conversant in the platform's operation? Dozy?
Please everyone: read the following paragraph carefully. Reread it if it's not clear after the first reading. Come back and ask questions if still unsure you understood it. Refer to interim2 for more information.
There were more than thirty cases of UAS similar to AF447 on A330 and A340 aeroplanes. Almost all of them included autopilot disconnect and reversion to alternate law. All of them ended without damage to aeroplane or injury to passengers. Airlines involved are not explicitly stated, yet from the date of the occurrence and MSN of the aeroplane it can be easily determined. There were some incidents involving the Air France.
Therefore:
Notion that unreliable airspeed must be fatal on Airbus is false.
Notion that most of the contemporary Airbus pilots are unable to handfly the beast in alternate law at cruise level is false.
Notion that every Air France pilot is so ill prepared for the UAS on 330/340 they are bound to crash if and when it occurs is false.
Originally Posted by Sillypeoples
If I were to guess, and it's just that...lighting strike took out their avionics and fly by wire
If you were to guess only based on CVR, it would be pretty reasonable thing to assume but there is no need to do that as DFDR data is available. No electronic or mechanical failure was detected. Yes, you have read it correctly: no failure! Sensors kept on measuring the pressure which was no longer actual total, as pitot orifices were blocked by ice and that's what cascaded into AP loss and reversion to ALTN2. Per design and a good one, too.
Originally Posted by PJ2
we remain unable to say why the aircraft was pitched up and, more importantly, why it was held there when all of us who fly transports know that the airplane is going to run out of energy with the pitch attitudes recorded in the data.
That's something both CM2 and CM1 forgot just before the accident. I'm speculating but perhaps they were too knackered to think straight?
Originally Posted by PJ2
The crew did not wake up that morning intending to have an accident
Not just that. We can be pretty certain that CM2 strongly believed he was saving himself and everyone on board from a threat that he unfortunately did not name for the sake of CVR. That his actions were just the opposite of needed is beyond tragic.