How in the world did you manage to resurrect this zombie thread again?
Originally Posted by alogobotur
I started to read final report, but it is very massive text, and it takes a lot of time to read it.
Massive it might be, yet it is very succinct with not much duplication or garish. Complex area, such as aviation, can not be explained in simple terms.
Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport
When the plane reverted to Alternate Law (2B if I remember correctly), engaging the autopilot was not an option. Once latched into alternate law, the autopilot can not be reengaged until the system is reset on the ground.
Originally Posted by alogobotur
Thx for the AP answers. So, AP switching on was not an option at all. It was also technicaly impossible.
False. Once speeds return back to normal, AP is available even as alternate law remains latched for the remainder of the flight. Pages 85 and 86 of the English edition of the final report refer.
Of course, once aeroplane was stalled, turning on the AP was impossible and pretty pointless.
Originally Posted by alogobotur
I want to hear something from the people who are also pilots, to hear what were they PROBABLY think
Probably nothing at all. Control inputs and cockpit audio bear no trace of anything that suggest the presence of rationality. They were panic stricken.
Originally Posted by alogbotur
After that they were "mad" and try to put the nose down, as I understand.
No. CM2 kept pulling, First significant input on the left stick was recorded merely 45 seconds before splashdown. CM1 pushed a bit but was counteracted by CM2. After that CM1 started pulling too and reversed to push in a final few seconds.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf50
jcjeant, being afflicted by fear or mental anguish is irrelevant if the problem was dying, don't you think?
What the... for Finnegan's sake, have a look at the CM2 stick trace! That's made by a guy who believed he would die if he just lets go of the stick! Such accidents are with us ever since the aeroplanes were first stalled! With all the emphasis in Airbus discussions being on autoflight and FBW, folks tend to forget effing Airbus is still an aeroplane, it stalls if you go over alpha crit!
Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport
why with several nose-down inputs to the control stick, some lasting several seconds, why the elevators never moved into a nose-down position.
They moved away from full nose up, which was enough to reduce pitch and promptly provoke another pull to backstop from CM2.
Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport
. I've asked that question a couple of times and no one seems to know
It was answered more than a dozen times in 10 threads. Pity some folks could not understand or did not want to understand as it didn't fit their pet theories.
Originally Posted by PuraVidaTransport
So even though the pilot commands nose-down, the fly-by-wire never moved the elevators to a nose-down position...for 15 seconds!!!
Pilot did, pilots didn't. Two sticks - two traces.
Originally Posted by PJ2
The fact that the other pilot cannot know what input is being made and therefore cannot make correct assessments as to aircraft handling is the reason why dual inputs are prohibited.
My gang also prohibited them on 737, ATR, MD-80 and Q400 also stipulated that only one pilot can be at the controls at the time, be it left, right or auto. Wonder why is that.
Originally Posted by alogobotur
They were obviously flying thru the storm, why they didn't go around it?
Originally Posted by BEA final report pages 168-169
But the aeroplane had not encountered, before or during the accident, an exceptional meteorological situation from the point of view of phenomena that are traditionally avoided in stormy environments (turbulence,lightning, icing).
They took avoiding action. They did not fly through the storm. Where the hell does this hundred times disproved notion they penetrated the active storm cell come from?
Originally Posted by Lyman
At Court, to the Judge.
It might come as news to some that recorders are fitted to help advance aviation safety and are not intended to be used in connection with civil trials. Even using them in criminal cases is not something aviation authorities look favourably upon.
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
The key detail is that they had no experience or training in high-altitude manual handling.
It's not a key detail but infrared herring. Issue is not handling but having no idea of the aeroplane's energy state. CM2 stalled aeroplane pretty deftly.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
But wasn't Bonin flying with his feet flat on the floor?
Recommend reading "Use of rudder on transport category aircraft". It's applicable to almost anything, "applicable only to Boeings" is just a legal boilerplate.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
You do a pretty good job, but sometimes you draw some strange conclusions----and I attribute that to lack of hands on experience.
If I'were to subscribe to the line of thought connecting his postings quality to experience, I would be forced to admit that experience is quite a hindrance in understanding the AF447.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
the company that employed the pilots felt that A330 does not require knowledge of manual flight at high altitude
They were quite correct in that respect, too. No aeroplane requires knowledge of manual flight at high altitude.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
this is a potential catastrophe in the waiting ..
If the real world conformed to your notions, yes. Fortunately it doesn't care a bit about anyone's ideas how it ought to be. Aeroplane flying high has all the inertia, more speed and a lot less stability & damping compared to the same plane flying lower but it takes a flight of fancy to conclude just from AF447 catastrophe that high manual flight is roughly analog to tight-wire act. Unwholesome experience of TAM crew, as described in 1.16.2 refers.
Originally Posted by Lyman
As if Pitch and AoA are unknown in aeronautics?
If I supposed for a second this thread is indicative of the state of the aeronautics, I would have to wholeheartedly agree with you. Luckily, it isn't so.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
Correct, but no pilot would accept to remain steady 3 or 400 ft below in RVSM airspace
Are you perchance suggesting it wasn't good enough for them so they went for whole 2000 ft bust?
Originally Posted by CONFiture
Some experiment has to be done.
No way I would volunteer. Would you?
Originally Posted by CONFiture
Why not correcting something that is stupid : auto trimming to the point of stall and further into it - Let a pilot take such deadly initiative, don't do it for him.
OMG! F-15, F-16, F-18, Rafale, Typhoon, all of the Airbi post 320 are deathtraps, with ueberintelligent pilots required just for everyday operations!
Perish the thought.
Autotrim is just automatic trim. Any aeroplane, anywhere, anytime is properly flown with reference to attitude. Whether the residual stick force after the required performance is achieved is trimmed out manually or automatically is just a minor detail.
Originally Posted by gums
So the system will attempt to achieve 1 gee corrected for pitch attitude. Have I read that wrong?
Eh... unlike F-16 which has G-trim, Airbus is made to be flightpath stable, so it will achieve 1G in wings level horizontal flight,not by chasing 1G but rather by trying to keep the flightpath constant. If we don't go into details and try to build theories on them, "Stick free it holds 1G" is good enough approximation. Displacing the stick commands the flightpath change with so-and-so gees, proportional to displacement.
Originally Posted by Lyman
This crew, but especially PF Bonin, was not madly pulling on the stick from the loss of A/P, not at all.
Are you accusing BEA of forging the sidestick traces?
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Commanding a pitch attitude with the stick will cause autotrim to maintain the pitch attitude at the point the stick was released to the best of its ability.
Not quite... it will maintain flightpath so left with nose-up, it will increase pitch as airspeed decays and alpha goes up. However, it is not as bad as some try to make it seem. Pilot needs to be quite incapacitated to leave the aeroplane wonder on her own.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Airbus and the BEA must have thought so because they replicated AF447 and in the Final Report even drew graphs in comparison with AF447's flight data.
Yup, up to the point where flight test data were available. A330 was intentionally stalled during flight testing (and recovered, obviously) but never driven to 40° alpha.
Originally Posted by PJ2
It is neither practically nor philosophically merely just an "iterative example of how technology has changed." It is a far more complex human phenomenon that requires the respect of awareness. Technology changes who we are and if we are blind to that, we are blind to its dangers while lauding its benefits.
True, but not very applicable to AF447, which was a case of pilots unable to remember and apply basic flying lessons at 4AM, which might be partly affected by not understanding how thin is the Airbus's technological armour shielding from the elements. Precursor of AF447 was described by Wolfgang Langewiesche almost seventy years ago.
Originally Posted by PJ2
You already know I have no problem with automation and all technological advances just so long as one knows one's craft and can do the job when the bytes and pixels quit
That's something you share with about every functional aviation authority in the world.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Understood, yes!, but never respected and that means knowing how to fly and think regardless of technology.
I'd rather use phrase "cowed by technology" than "having respect for technology" but basically, I agree.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Now I never went back to manual trim airplanes so can't speak for that direction of a transition.
Did and can. I didn't know it was an issue until I read it was supposed to be on this thread.
Originally Posted by gums
Gotta tellya, that if the AF447 crew had a gut understanding of the system, we wouldn't all be here talking about it.
There were other crews in UAS that had no clue what was happening and had no understanding of the system. They sat puzzled and not doing anything. So survived.
Originally Posted by PJ2
Granted a 5deg pitch up at FL350 won't lead to stalling the airplane, but why destabilize the airplane in the first place?
Have a look at the pitch; it's not consistent with CM2 doing low level UAS drill at high level, but rather as if he were trying to run away at all costs from something he believed was coming from below to get him.
Originally Posted by Mac the Knife
Wouldn't their Attitude Indicator showing a lot of blue sky given them a clue?
They absorbed roll info all right but just couldn't connect the blue on AH and rapidly winding altimeter with idea they will eventually run out of speed and stall.