AF447
The light touch on the moderating button is appreciated, even if it means more work to sort out locally.
Thread Starter
Verdict due April 17, 2023. Now that the burden of making a criminal finding is lifted, one hopes many sacred cows will be profaned.... Airframer, Regulator, Investigator. Now an impossibly incestuous, highly conflicted and untouchable gang, maybe justice will see change. Let's see if AIR, EASA, BEA, and France can be saved the incredible cost of investigating and pardoning themselves...
....par exemplar
....par exemplar
Concours, I've got a couple axes that need to be sharpened. Since you've obviously got an ax to grind, would you minding taking care of mine while you're at it? 
Thread Starter
Heh heh.... always appreciate your humor. You are flying a widebody twin, crossing the Atlantic... it is fit with two Pitot Probes that are known to be unreliable... Let's call them Thales by name. Replacements, call them Goodrich, are available, but your airline is dragging its heels on replacing the defectives...Well, the bad boys choke on ice and freeze up...AUTOPILOT OFF. MASTER CAUTION, Etc. You are Sky King, in rest, and the two gents up front, aren't, well, familiar.... adios... that could easily be construed as criminal negligence, from around these parts. One of many sloppy things surrounding this wreck...
I agree. And since it is AB SOP to sometimes use the sidestick, and hardly ever use the thrust levers (other than T/O and Landing), it would have made more sense to have a single mid-stick, and dual thrust levers on either side of the cockpit..... (or interconnecting them, or even better, have them move with the control surfaces, thrust levers included...)
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
I agree as there is nothing " new" that came out so far that would justify reopening this discussion . There are just one thing that could perhaps help : to be able to read a detailed report on the test flights made by Airbus on their A340 test bed somewhere in Spring 2010 trying to reproduce the event.. Rumors at the time was than one flight did not go well and was only recovered at very low level. The report of those flights never was made public as far as I know. , hopefully one day we might see it and that might shed some new light. Maybe.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was public : there was an article in the Liberation newspaper in France in 2020 mentioning those flights , it said one apparently even went to Guyane to recreate the tropical conditions . The "interesting one " is supposed to have occured near Mt De Marsan in France in the Airbus test area . and was seen on radar by Civil ATC and mentioned on an ATC forum. . Then a serie of posts /rumors on a French Aviation forum ( Radiocockpit, now closed) mentionned this flight, one arguing they were close to evacuate ( this test A340 has an in-fligh evacuatuion door ) Rumors or exagerrations perhaps, but it would have been easy for Airbus to stop them , as some of their staff were on the AF447 thread on this peraticular forum at the time , all defending Airbus , but they did not on this occasion . More I do not know. .
It was public : there was an article in the Liberation newspaper in France in 2020 mentioning those flights , it said one apparently even went to Guyane to recreate the tropical conditions . The "interesting one " is supposed to have occured near Mt De Marsan in France in the Airbus test area . and was seen on radar by Civil ATC and mentioned on an ATC forum. . Then a serie of posts /rumors on a French Aviation forum ( Radiocockpit, now closed) mentionned this flight, one arguing they were close to evacuate ( this test A340 has an in-fligh evacuatuion door ) Rumors or exagerrations perhaps, but it would have been easy for Airbus to stop them , as some of their staff were on the AF447 thread on this peraticular forum at the time , all defending Airbus , but they did not on this occasion . More I do not know. .
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Here, there, and everywhere
Posts: 1,123
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
7 Posts
It was public : there was an article in the Liberation newspaper in France in 2020 mentioning those flights , it said one apparently even went to Guyane to recreate the tropical conditions . The "interesting one " is supposed to have occured near Mt De Marsan in France in the Airbus test area . and was seen on radar by Civil ATC and mentioned on an ATC forum. . Then a serie of posts /rumors on a French Aviation forum ( Radiocockpit, now closed) mentionned this flight, one arguing they were close to evacuate ( this test A340 has an in-fligh evacuatuion door ) Rumors or exagerrations perhaps, but it would have been easy for Airbus to stop them , as some of their staff were on the AF447 thread on this peraticular forum at the time , all defending Airbus , but they did not on this occasion . More I do not know. .
Pilot error after a simple tech failure, this has been done to death.
What is far more interesting is why two supposedly competent pilots were unable to recognise that 10 degrees nose up and 10000ft per min descent rate is a stall. The Captain realised as soon as he entered the flight deck but by then there was insufficient height to recover, hence his comment “we’re dead”.
If only they’d initiated the airspeed unreliable checklist, or performed an FNC or simply set 2.5 degrees pitch and 90% N1.
Ultimately pilots don’t make mistakes on purpose which begs questions of their training and attitude.
LD
What is far more interesting is why two supposedly competent pilots were unable to recognise that 10 degrees nose up and 10000ft per min descent rate is a stall. The Captain realised as soon as he entered the flight deck but by then there was insufficient height to recover, hence his comment “we’re dead”.
If only they’d initiated the airspeed unreliable checklist, or performed an FNC or simply set 2.5 degrees pitch and 90% N1.
Ultimately pilots don’t make mistakes on purpose which begs questions of their training and attitude.
LD
letting go the controls would have saved their lives... It works far more often than not, planes generally want to fly unless the trim has been compromised by thrust/THS mismatching (Perpignan) or by cg shift (National) or by loss of a primary flight control UAL232 etc. There are very few aircraft that releasing the controls and power to idle will not stop gyrations.
SLF non-aviation engineer here. I'm curious, how relevant would the behaviour of an A-340 be to the accident flight that was with an A-330? I know the FBW and cockpit is the same between the two types, but the actual aircraft aerodynamics and behaviour, is that 'similar enough'? Or is it just that Airbus did not have an A-330 with and evacuation system and thought that they could learn something useful from the A-340?
I cannot recall any aircraft that will allow a full backstick input without relief, that won't result in a headline, well, maybe the Ercoup, that had some curious limitations of control authorities.
AF447. Yeah that one. My memory actually is getting better with age. To wit: I recall from early thread, either TechLog or Rumours, that the Vertical Stabilizer/Rudder was found somewhat separated and distant from the impact with the sea. There was discussion linking the loss of HF Comms with loss of VS which contained HF antenna. It was reported that the HF antenna was elsewhere on the fuselage, so that theory was sunk. Researching the possible re-engining of the 747 into a twin, I found A330 architecture, and lo! HF antenna is located in the leading edge of the A330 Vertical Stabilizer.... for whatever that might mean. I was never satisfied that PF pulled on the stick start to finish. Occam would say he had a reason, perhaps in concert with loss of all directional control..... just sayin'
That AF 447 was the 5th UAS case for AF and F-Troop wasn't on top of the game is disappointing. A lot of dead people and grieving families arising from a company that should have been on top of their game. France has a long history of competency in aviation, mon dieu!, they have M. Marcel Dassault, the designer of beautiful aircraft, he must have Italian blood there somewhere, (the Falcon 10, 20 & 50 are beautiful to fly, so was the MIrage), and yet, AF has parked B747s in Papeete, New Delhi, A340s in Toronto, and sundry other planes in untidy piles. dive their cars, fly their planes love their food and lifestyle, but what happens in front of the flight deck door?
Thread Starter
"Not sure I'd agree with you there sparky... if the THS had departed the scene, the next thing that happens is a very rapid nose down pitch rate develops, usually fast enough to achieve negative g loads that result in failure of the main wings in downward bending overload." ???? Where had it been suggested by anyone that the THS had separated the aircraft? That is bizarre...Separation of Vertical Stabiliser/Rudder, as in JAL Mt Fuji, or AA 587, or UAL232...yes..... Once Stalled and in an extreme "mush" (nose up, high angle of attack) aft stick may have been a temporary solution to total loss of control... one doesn't want to entertain that a pilot would see a high descent rate and pull, if it was established in a Stall, and he knew it. Bear in mind that the Airbus does not necessarily drop its nose on Stall entry.Shake, yes, but it was designed to be longitudinally stable. If the Stall was entered, and became established in a reasonably stable mush, that would explain how they missed Stall entry...Fact is, the mushed Stall regime might have been the purposeful work of the A340 test ship. The test crew, finding themselves in 447's established descent profile, could not get the Nose Down, and recovered only after accepting a very unknown and bizarre attitude and out of control platform... and they knew what to expect... With respect, Will
Last edited by Concours77; 23rd Mar 2023 at 17:30.
It was public : there was an article in the Liberation newspaper in France in 2020 mentioning those flights , it said one apparently even went to Guyane to recreate the tropical conditions . The "interesting one " is supposed to have occured near Mt De Marsan in France in the Airbus test area . and was seen on radar by Civil ATC and mentioned on an ATC forum. . Then a serie of posts /rumors on a French Aviation forum ( Radiocockpit, now closed) mentionned this flight, one arguing they were close to evacuate ( this test A340 has an in-fligh evacuatuion door ) Rumors or exagerrations perhaps, but it would have been easy for Airbus to stop them , as some of their staff were on the AF447 thread on this peraticular forum at the time , all defending Airbus , but they did not on this occasion . More I do not know. .
If you refer to the original Radiocockpit (rcoco), it has never been known as a reliable source of information, and it was closed much before 2020 (I would say about 2006-2007). The next Radiocockpit (radiocockpit.fr I think) was closed in about 2014.
"Seen on radar by Civil ATC" and what? Was the Civil ATC then aware of the nature of the test flight? Seeing a deep descent and a low altitude recovery - it it was that - on a radar does not mean that it was the "replay" of AF447. It could have been any other test that Airbus needed to carry out.
I appreciate that we are on a Rumours site but some facts may be checked a bit time to time.
By the way, were these flights known by the AF447 families and referred to during the various legal/court sessions?
.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Seen on radar by Civil ATC" and what? Was the Civil ATC then aware of the nature of the test flight? Seeing a deep descent and a low altitude recovery - it it was that - on a radar does not mean that it was the "replay" of AF447. It could have been any other test that Airbus needed to carry out..
By the way, were these flights known by the AF447 families and referred to during the various legal/court sessions?
Last edited by ATC Watcher; 24th Mar 2023 at 11:13. Reason: typo
Indeed, good point , however normal daily Airbus test flighs do not do this . Anyway .I do not remember the exact points made at the time , that was 12 years ago but there were a few reports of that fight in the discussion . Pity the site closed not to be able to check the archives..
I have no idea ,maybe they were, I have not been following the day to day proceedings of the trial . However one has to remember that this was in 2020 before the hull was found and CVR/FDR were recovered . so I can guess the results of these flights did not deliver any additional useful technical info anymore after the FDR/CVR were read . I would nevertheless like to see the report of that flight. .
I have no idea ,maybe they were, I have not been following the day to day proceedings of the trial . However one has to remember that this was in 2020 before the hull was found and CVR/FDR were recovered . so I can guess the results of these flights did not deliver any additional useful technical info anymore after the FDR/CVR were read . I would nevertheless like to see the report of that flight. .
To start with, I am not working for Airbus and have no relationship with them.
If you refer to the original Radiocockpit (rcoco), it has never been known as a reliable source of information, and it was closed much before 2020 (I would say about 2006-2007). The next Radiocockpit (radiocockpit.fr I think) was closed in about 2014.
"Seen on radar by Civil ATC" and what? Was the Civil ATC then aware of the nature of the test flight? Seeing a deep descent and a low altitude recovery - it it was that - on a radar does not mean that it was the "replay" of AF447. It could have been any other test that Airbus needed to carry out.
I appreciate that we are on a Rumours site but some facts may be checked a bit time to time.
By the way, were these flights known by the AF447 families and referred to during the various legal/court sessions?
.
If you refer to the original Radiocockpit (rcoco), it has never been known as a reliable source of information, and it was closed much before 2020 (I would say about 2006-2007). The next Radiocockpit (radiocockpit.fr I think) was closed in about 2014.
"Seen on radar by Civil ATC" and what? Was the Civil ATC then aware of the nature of the test flight? Seeing a deep descent and a low altitude recovery - it it was that - on a radar does not mean that it was the "replay" of AF447. It could have been any other test that Airbus needed to carry out.
I appreciate that we are on a Rumours site but some facts may be checked a bit time to time.
By the way, were these flights known by the AF447 families and referred to during the various legal/court sessions?
.
Simply type in "waybackmachine" in your search and then the URL of the site you want and you will see a series of dates when the site was crawled and can explore the ENTIRE content as snapped on that day.
- GY
Thread Starter
fdr...the "Tail"
"The FDR showed no evidence of a change in the structure or aerodynamics or response of the aircraft to control positions."
Check the Rudder traces, and re-read CVR. Especially make note of Hdg, altitude, power and control positions at the moment Autopilot quit....review "jet upset"... add in the "zoom climb"; would be interested in your remarks...
Check the Rudder traces, and re-read CVR. Especially make note of Hdg, altitude, power and control positions at the moment Autopilot quit....review "jet upset"... add in the "zoom climb"; would be interested in your remarks...
Last edited by Concours77; 24th Mar 2023 at 15:19.