AF447
 

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'

In a stalled condition, the tail will hit the sea first, breaking off, probably. This was all covered in the other threads. No idea where you got the idea that the HF Antenna is fitted elsewhere. It's public knowledge.
Also, the CVR transcript said nothing about loss of directional control or ECAM warnings for hydraulic systems or rudder lost.
Let it go eh. 👍

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

02:13:40 (Bonin) But I've had the stick back the whole time!

I don't think the CVR transcript supports what you say about the Captain's reaction, or his words - https://tailstrike.com/database/01-j...ir-france-447/

It doesn't take much to Google the last words heard on the CVR... the official transcript is 'tided up' and substitutes a (!) for the expletive - the word's said were "****, we're going to crash" said by the occupant of the right seat. And then

But what you were or weren't satisfied with isn't important - the evidence was in the CVR recording the entire time. I mean there's this: "But I’ve been at maxi nose-up for a while".

And then of course there was the FDR data.

Let it go.

Stall recovery. To Bonin, holding back stick and commanded full power is Stall recove
 

Right...I should have been more explicit."Holding the stick back without apparent reason...." A reason could have been lack of yaw control at lower AoA...​​​​​​​Captain DuBois: "Watch your lateral..." ​​​​​​​Don't know that "intact at impact" was established without doubt... I work on cold cases, and it's been slow...

A poster in an early thread formalized duff airspeed in an acronym: 'UAS' Unreliable airspeed, usage became ubiquitous. A sign of lack of acknowledgement by industry til this crash?

Stall recovery til this crash involved "maintain back pressure and full power"

Fine for an approach Stall, but not at altitude. "I don't understand, we have the engines..."

HopIng for additional improvements to the flight manual...unfortunate the CVR is sequestered... modifying eye witness testimony is a serious crime here in the US.
Won a case on suppressed testimony. (The lawyers did, I was just the investigator)​​​​​​​

An important part of doing this when a crisis happens is to have already gone through your mind several times previously that about 2.5 degrees is what you want along with about 90% N1(or whatever is applicable to your type). Yes, you may deviate somewhat from this due to powerful instincts from unusual airspeed indications but you are more likely to quickly recognize that you are deviating away from where you always want to be in cruise.

If this important target is not very familiar to you, it is less likely that you will think amid much confusion of what your target is when other things do not make sense. You may find yourself chasing an airspeed as that is all you are truly familiar with.

Elephant/parlour
 

"If this important target is not very familiar to you, it is less likely that you will think amid much confusion of what your target is when other things do not make sense. You may find yourself chasing an airspeed as that is all you are truly familiar with." ....... punkalouver
As I recall, one of the last transmissions included "...turbulences....FORTE...!" Well, on top of all the goofy readings, it may have been too unstable in the cockpit to see the panel anyway....They had blundered into the red, and the crazy climb may well have been a thunderboomer lifting everything up and up. Then they blundered out, and lost lift, much of their thrust, and the rest of their composure.... The Pitot tubes were due to be replaced, AF was too cheap to fit BUSS, and Pitch and Power was too obvious, too much nonsense and poor luck squeezed it out of the consciousness of our lost pilots...

‘ POOR LUCK!’
Substitute ‘lack of professionalism’

Seriously?

There are a squillion posts spread over a dozen threads, starting here

AF 447 Search to resume - PPRuNe Forums

Dear god tell me you aren’t a professional pilot. Full back stick has NEVER been part of the stall recovery on any commercial aircraft.

Are you saying that was an Air France SOP? If it was it explains the pilots behaviour and why they killed everyone on board.

Stall recovery is taught at the very start of any pilots training, and always involves reducing the AoA by lowering the nose, increasing thrust to assist acceleration and gently easing into a climb once flying speed is achieved.

Good Lord, spare us....................

I don't understand why JT didn't simply close the thread, having provided a link where every aspect of the accident that could possibly be discussed has already been.

Not fine anywhere unless you are inverted :E

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.

All air crashes are due to human error. Zero air crashes are due to pilot error. AF447 crashed due to human error. To wit- Airbus placing the sidestick where it's not visible to other crew members.

I don't understand why JT didn't simply close the thread,

I'm just a bear of very little brain (with apologies to Milne) ... all too hard to do that.

The series of threads, however (and once you sort the wheat from the chaff), have a lot of very useful stuff from many very knowledgeable folk. Just a great pity that circumstances conspired to make it all a bit too hard for the crew at the time with due consideration of their, perhaps limited, knowledge base.

Please accept my deepest apologies... I believed that at lower level, the procedure was "at low level, minimize altitude loss, full power...." after all, the aircraft "cannot Stall". In Normal Law, that allowed for a stick (alpha) controlled by the computer...no? Pilots were accustomed to cavalier inputs. "Mayonnaise stirring"

As long as you don't become wedged in a great tightness and have to go off yer grits for a week you'll be ok :)

The light touch on the moderating button is appreciated, even if it means more work to sort out locally.

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

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? :rolleyes:

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...)

If it has never been made public, could you tell us how you know about it? From someone with direct knowledge? It would be interesting to even hear the basic details.

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. .

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?

It would be interesting to find out if Airbus removed protections for stalls on those flights and then intentionally entered one. If so, I wonder if there are any people or structures in their test area. Might be wiser to do any intentional stalls, or at least prolonged ones over water.

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.

very similar. the event wasn't related to a thrust couple/THS mismatch, this was purely a transient instrumentation and degradation of control laws that should have been a yawn, but the response was random in the face of utter SA loss. Loss of ADC data is not unheard of event, and yet crews get started sideways with it quite rapidly. An Airbus FBW is actually an elegant system, it is really nice when working, crosswinds are still a bit awkward, but the bit that makes them nicer when working normally results in guys n girls often having issues when degraded control laws apply, the main thing being the missing dog to bite the pilot if they don't remember to use manual trim. The addition of the U bit to the C* law keeps the pilot in contact with the trim condition of the plane... (MCAS excepted, a plane with limited SAS functionality, and "FBW" being braided steel cables mainly) A330 and A340 are common architecture, there is negligible change, and aerodynamically, an AF447 type input on the 340 would have resulted in an AF 447 splash in an A340 too. Come to think of it, holding full back stick in a B727 will end up the same way, it did many years ago.

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.

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. Even from a stalled condition, that pitch rate would result in accelerated speed rapidly ending up with wing structural failure before an impact, following your assumption that the tail was far enough away that it separated airborne, which means a substantial height. From a stall condition, where there is no load issue that is going to break tail that has more than chewing gum holding it together, I would expect.... above 8000' AMSL, a loss of the tail will take the wings off before water entry. With a low speed, impact, separation of the tail is not unusual, and the area around the stab connection is robust, I would think it makes a darn fine sea sled at that point. The FDR showed no evidence of a change in the structure or aerodynamics or response of the aircraft to control positions. There was nothing wrong with the plane until it "alighted upon the water" , once the pitot heads had cured themselves.

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?

"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 ​​​​​​​

The only difference is the number of engines paul, airframes identical.

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?

.

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 2010 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. .

The hull and CVR/FDR were found in 2011.

indeed , typo, 2010 was meant not 2020, correctred now.

It's the internet - nothing ever 'goes away': https://web.archive.org/web/20230000...adiocockpit.fr

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

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...