View Full Version : AF - loss of seperation
hetfield
19th Sep 2012, 17:48
Jeez, what is wrong with AF?
For me, they have to do something....
Incident: Air France A319 at Prague on Sep 13th 2012, loss of separation (http://avherald.com/h?article=4561b7f7&opt=0)
exeng
19th Sep 2012, 18:18
Jeez, what is wrong with AF?
Perhaps simply it is poor training standards throughout the company. However probably the answer is more complex - perhaps a flawed culture throughout the company starting from somewhere in senior management and progressing down.
Tableview
19th Sep 2012, 18:39
perhaps a flawed culture throughout the company starting from somewhere in senior management and progressing down
The standard French practice of (Rule Number 1) never being wrong, and when they are wrong (Refer to Rule Number 1), blaming someone else, preferably someone who's dead and can't defend themselves.
blissbak
19th Sep 2012, 18:40
Too much trust in the machine
fingal flyer
19th Sep 2012, 22:22
Tis not an AF prob per say,Blissbak is right too much trust in the machine.
Too much trust in the machine
IIR correctly, the FMGC codes this leg with continuous heading from ERASU (062°). There is a note on the chart that clearly states "Unless otherwise instructed continue on 062° heading. RADAR vectoring will be provided."
So either the FMGC coding was wrong (unlikely or this would be a regular occurrence) or it was "cleaned up" to take out the DISCON or they manually intervened with HDG.
Whichever it was, they got it wrong. You'd have thought that their TCAS would have given some good SA with a (probable) white diamond very close..... which they then turned towards :\
Fatigue? Inattention? Complacency? Non sterile cockpit?
It makes you realise that no matter how sharp you think you are, there may be others who will spoil your day........
Dormant Dog
20th Sep 2012, 02:01
Someone "cleaned up" the flight plan.
That's why I always leave a discountinuity in a normally expected shortcut to remind me that we are not yet cleared.
Case One
21st Sep 2012, 14:15
Jeez, what is wrong with AF
Seems to me it's not AF. It is the Air France Airbus fleet, the Boeing guys never seem to make the headlines.
This is not an A v B dig, but it does seem to take the usual "it's cause their French" banter out of the equation. Why do the two fleets have such different records?
If I was an AF safety manager, I'd be seriously looking. Especially as the media seem to be picking up every incident now.
Yes, but the fleet stands at 181 Airbus and 74 Boeing (just 777/747 so long haul only).
So a ratio of roughly 2:1 A to B and 75% of the Airbus are shorthaul so, statistically, more likely to have an event. I'm not trying defend AF but things have to be taken in context.
Perhaps more interestingly, the source for the above (Airlinefleets.net) shows they have written off 2xA300, 1xA320, 1xA330, 2xA340, 1xB737, 3xB747 and 1xConcorde ........... that's 11 aircraft.
I'm not sure what their definition of "written off" is....but are all the above accidents?
I stress I'm only relaying information from the above mentioned site - I have no idea as to its accuracy. The only ones I can't recall are the A300's and the Boeings - all the other well documented.
Case One
21st Sep 2012, 15:44
Perhaps I should have been more specific. I'm aware of the fleet size differences. I'm refering to thier "recent" mishap history, i.e. the last couple of decades. Without having access to the AF incident database I can't quote the split, but annecdotal evidence suggests that it's way out of proportion.
The cause of the '99 B747 Madras mishap did not involve aircrew error to my knowledge and is therefore irrelevant.
They've also lost 707s, Caravelles, DC-4s, Connies etc, all equally irrelevant.
Or are they?
William A Bong
22nd Sep 2012, 00:59
It is a culture thing. We have just covered this in our recurrent CRM. The actual total hull losses since 1946 is 85
That far exceedes any other first world airline.
Blimey! That's more than 1 a year :eek:
WASPERNATOR
22nd Sep 2012, 15:56
Seriously -would you fly AF?
Last winter, my kids and myself flew BA LHR-MUC. On the return leg we were queuing patiently (with several LH aircraft) for de-icing.
This was as ever, tedious and seemed to take ages but it was a very cold snowy MUC so seemed a very sensible precaution.
What should pass us all and depart without de-icing? Why, our old friends AF. It seems their aircraft are not susceptible to ice like ours?
They have too many accidents. They are on my avoid list.
More about AF incidents/accidents see:
Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Operator index > France > Air France (http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6679)
seat 0A
23rd Sep 2012, 13:13
Was it actually snowing?
The whole decision to de-ice or not de-ice is not as clear cut as you might think.
WASPERNATOR
23rd Sep 2012, 13:41
Yes - it was snowing heavily. De-icing was right for BA & LH - but clearly not essential for AF operating the same equipment.
Without having access to the AF incident database I can't quote the split
Hi,
More about AF incidents/accidents see: Aviation Safety Network > ASN Aviation Safety Database > Operator index > France > Air France (http://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=6679)
Clandestino
28th Sep 2012, 13:00
Jeez, what is wrong with AF?Oh, not much. They have dropped a widebody into Atlantic a few years ago so their effups receive quite a bit more scrutiny than other companies'.
To make it clear:
Yes, they have problems.
Yes, it is cultural.
No, it is not "French thing" or limited to AF. Malaise of incompetence is quite widespread throughout the world, even the first one.
Someone "cleaned up" the flight plan.That's where I'd put my money also. Lot of water has passed underneath the Charles bridge since I've last overflown it but it seems LKPR has adopted German-style transition; stay on downwind track until vectored into base. When faced with such a transition it is under no circumstances allowed to erase (VECTOR) from FMS flight plan yet I've come across some effohs who would do that so they get more precise ToD and VNAV path calculations, also more accurate ETA for their PA. They would usually get away with it as seldom is the traffic so heavy to warrant proceeding beyond the last downwind waypoint, call to turn base comes much earlier.
One thing I haven't seen yet is the F/O who would perform such a feat second time when rostered with me. :E
It is a culture thing. We have just covered this in our recurrent CRM. The actual total hull losses since 1946 is 85Does it include wet leased TAME 727 hitting the mountain near Bogota or Air Littoral Brasilia hitting the trees short of runway in Bordeaux?
That far exceedes any other first world airline. Their experience in flying Ju-52 over North Africa just after WW2 also far exceeds that of any other first world airline. They have lost five of them in just four months of 1947.
The cause of the '99 B747 Madras mishap did not involve aircrew error to my knowledge and is therefore irrelevant.Time for update:
The flight crew concluded that all gear were down and locked despite a red GEAR light on the forward instrument panel. The crew had failed to recognize that the green GEAR DOWN light for the nose gear was not illuminated and assumed that the red GEAR light on the forward instrument panel was a false indication. The gear was recycled, but an alternate extension was not attempted.