Did you enjoy 60 Minutes last night?
'FGD' I imagine that was exactly the problem for the hapless drivers, the F/D bars where telling them to go that way (up) due false info to the F/D's, this is where it's time NOT to believe yr instruments, that's at odds as to what we have been taught from day one. If only they had tried the FPV display as that's not effected by blocked Pitot tubes, only if the static ports where blocked.
Blocked static ports ruin everything in a plane, that's the nasty one!
The conditions need to be met as you mentioned (which is obviously correct as you said) is with everything in life from the fuel gauge in yr car to when the LE slats drop out on a Tiger Moth, certain conditions need to be met for it to happen.
The words 'only if'......
At the very least such discussions as this one prods the mind into thinking about 'what if'
Wmk2
Blocked static ports ruin everything in a plane, that's the nasty one!
The conditions need to be met as you mentioned (which is obviously correct as you said) is with everything in life from the fuel gauge in yr car to when the LE slats drop out on a Tiger Moth, certain conditions need to be met for it to happen.
The words 'only if'......
At the very least such discussions as this one prods the mind into thinking about 'what if'
Wmk2
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bottom line is that if the pilot flying had done nothing other than maintain attitude, we wouldn't be discussing this. Full backstick & full power was a totally inappropriate response.
The question needs to be asked - "can today's pilots fly, or can they only 'manage' the autoflight system?" Although some in the industry would say that that is all they need to be able to do, I personally don't agree with that.
The question needs to be asked - "can today's pilots fly, or can they only 'manage' the autoflight system?" Although some in the industry would say that that is all they need to be able to do, I personally don't agree with that.
Full backstick & full power was a totally inappropriate response.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...nexe.03.en.pdf
People need to look at the big picture and not just sledge the drivers.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Western Pacific
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The full backstick started after the descent had started.
Bloggs:- reading page 22 of the BEA report. As soon as the A/P disconnected the PF pulled back, it may not have been full back stick but it caused the stall none the less.
Final report
Final report
Last edited by nitpicker330; 14th May 2013 at 09:41.
People argue how automation dependence is now causing accidents and what a problem it is.
Imagine all the smoking holes over certain parts of the world without it.
Imagine no TCAS, no GPWS! Imagine raw data approaches, mental arithmetic for descent profiles, holding pattern sector entries and speed control after 14 hours in ****ty weather. No thanks.
Automation may have killed a few people now, but I wonder how many people it has saved!
If I flew as a pax on certain airlines, I'd appreciate the autoflight systems on.
Thanks
Imagine all the smoking holes over certain parts of the world without it.
Imagine no TCAS, no GPWS! Imagine raw data approaches, mental arithmetic for descent profiles, holding pattern sector entries and speed control after 14 hours in ****ty weather. No thanks.
Automation may have killed a few people now, but I wonder how many people it has saved!
If I flew as a pax on certain airlines, I'd appreciate the autoflight systems on.
Thanks
TCAS and GPWS, probably the big saviours of passengers in the recent decades, have nothing to do with automation dependency. Agree that VNAV has increased safety, but automation certainly hasn't prevented the opportunity for at least a bit of fair-weather hand-flying.
In any case, as Centaurus pointed out, simulators are ideal. We just need the extra time allocated!
No it didn't. Even after the PF had "flown" it up to 37k, it was still doing 233kt.
Probably because the speeds had dropped from 275 to 60 "sharply" just before.
46 seconds later, the thing really stalled. Look at the pitch command trace: all he was doing until the thing was descending was waggling the stick around (with a slight nose-up bias). Then he pulled full back stick.
Implying he pulled full back stick, stalled it and held it til splashdown is simplistic and unfair.These guys got shafted as much by the aeroplane as by their own lack of skill.
In any case, as Centaurus pointed out, simulators are ideal. We just need the extra time allocated!
Bloggs:- reading page 22 of the BEA report. As soon as the A/P disconnected the PF pulled back, it may not have been full back stick but it caused the stall none the less.
At 2 h 10 min 05, the autopilot then the auto-thrust disconnected and the PF said “I have the controls”. The aeroplane began to roll to the right and the PF made a nose-up and left input. The stall warning triggered briefly twice in a row.
46 seconds later, the thing really stalled. Look at the pitch command trace: all he was doing until the thing was descending was waggling the stick around (with a slight nose-up bias). Then he pulled full back stick.
Implying he pulled full back stick, stalled it and held it til splashdown is simplistic and unfair.These guys got shafted as much by the aeroplane as by their own lack of skill.
No hot heads please:-)
Healthy debate is good as it can only improve ones mind.
But lets for a minute look at the events in a different light to provoke more discussion if only to stimulate more thought (without personal insult which is rife on Pprune). Now before all you hot heads out there get wound up this is NOT the only possible blame scenario but just another angle.
One could look at all this as the blame lies 100% with the pilots, more specifically the Commander.
We all know that man has invented the A330 as he has with all other flying machines so that being the case it's guaranteed that these machines will fail sometimes.
Ok we know the probes didn't handle the outside wx conditions on the night, fine we accept that (as it's now fact) as humans designed/made the bloody things in the first place & we pilots have been using them (or any invented stuff) knowing full well that like any other zillion parts on an Aeroplane that they/it could fail at any time (that's why we have redundancy although in this case 50 probes wouldn't have helped!)remembering we don't fly in nice sunny clear days all the time. So we train for such failures (unreliable airspeed) & we have text books via zillions of pages on the Net, on-board text, general knowledge of flight ( a stall is a stall whether it be in a Wright Flyer or an Airbus) & we have the basic instinct as humans to survive.
Engine failures, there's plenty of them that have happened over the years from day one & we have trained to deal with them & modern day planes will fly all day on 1 engine (twin) so the question is why do we have trouble swallowing the fact that the pilots on AF447 where not totally responsible for the crash?
If you have an engine failure in a twin for Eg & you crash, is it not the pilots fault that the plane crashed all things being equal (I'm talking about a basic eng failure where it's survivable)? Yes obviously as we knew damned well that engines can & do fail so we fly accordingly, again what's the diff with AF447? It had an engine failure so to speak by way of blocked sensors (Pitot's) & the aircraft was simply miss-handled & crashed (much like a miss-handled eng failure) where we know had the pilots done some very basic airman-ship stuff they may very well be all still alive today.
For crying out loud they had around 40000' to do it in (get it under control) 4 mins by all accounts, that's quite a long time to be totally out of it when the answer initially was so very simple.(yes I know hindsight is a wonderful thing)
Why do we do all the checks we do in any aeroplane? 'cause to make sure it's safe to fly (safe as possible) so why not continue those checks albeit via recall actions at any stage of the flight should there be a problem?
We where all taught to fly (pilots obviously) & that skill should cover ALL scenarios that are fixable or preventable from the time we start the donks 'till it's chocked. The complexity of the machines we fly increase as we go thru our flying careers & so does the knowledge we need to have to handle such events.
Unreliable Airspeed is nothing new, most have probably experienced it during their career I know I have it's no diff in some ways than as I have mentioned an engine failure 'cause it's mechanical & can fail so we deal with it as per our training.
To me the highest proportion of blame lies with the Commander but it goes further than that.
If you want to break down this accident blame game ('cause humans are good at this) then you could start with the Capt (as he's the ultimate responsibility on the day)then the F/O's ( if the Capt wasn't avail then the next highest F/O is in CMD) then the designers of both the Airbus itself (Boeings have plenty of crashes under their belts as well just to be balanced) & the Pitot probes as well as the Co's check & trainers inc the Owners/managers all the way down to the Wright Bro's for getting us all in this mess in the first place!:-)
It crashed, man made it (the machine) & made it crash & they will continue to do so 'till the end of time.
So who do we blame here? You chose as like the Airbus itself there's more than one way to skin this cat!:-)
Remember we are all pilots, engineers & aviation enthusiasts so we can all learn something everyday
Wmk2
But lets for a minute look at the events in a different light to provoke more discussion if only to stimulate more thought (without personal insult which is rife on Pprune). Now before all you hot heads out there get wound up this is NOT the only possible blame scenario but just another angle.
One could look at all this as the blame lies 100% with the pilots, more specifically the Commander.
We all know that man has invented the A330 as he has with all other flying machines so that being the case it's guaranteed that these machines will fail sometimes.
Ok we know the probes didn't handle the outside wx conditions on the night, fine we accept that (as it's now fact) as humans designed/made the bloody things in the first place & we pilots have been using them (or any invented stuff) knowing full well that like any other zillion parts on an Aeroplane that they/it could fail at any time (that's why we have redundancy although in this case 50 probes wouldn't have helped!)remembering we don't fly in nice sunny clear days all the time. So we train for such failures (unreliable airspeed) & we have text books via zillions of pages on the Net, on-board text, general knowledge of flight ( a stall is a stall whether it be in a Wright Flyer or an Airbus) & we have the basic instinct as humans to survive.
Engine failures, there's plenty of them that have happened over the years from day one & we have trained to deal with them & modern day planes will fly all day on 1 engine (twin) so the question is why do we have trouble swallowing the fact that the pilots on AF447 where not totally responsible for the crash?
If you have an engine failure in a twin for Eg & you crash, is it not the pilots fault that the plane crashed all things being equal (I'm talking about a basic eng failure where it's survivable)? Yes obviously as we knew damned well that engines can & do fail so we fly accordingly, again what's the diff with AF447? It had an engine failure so to speak by way of blocked sensors (Pitot's) & the aircraft was simply miss-handled & crashed (much like a miss-handled eng failure) where we know had the pilots done some very basic airman-ship stuff they may very well be all still alive today.
For crying out loud they had around 40000' to do it in (get it under control) 4 mins by all accounts, that's quite a long time to be totally out of it when the answer initially was so very simple.(yes I know hindsight is a wonderful thing)
Why do we do all the checks we do in any aeroplane? 'cause to make sure it's safe to fly (safe as possible) so why not continue those checks albeit via recall actions at any stage of the flight should there be a problem?
We where all taught to fly (pilots obviously) & that skill should cover ALL scenarios that are fixable or preventable from the time we start the donks 'till it's chocked. The complexity of the machines we fly increase as we go thru our flying careers & so does the knowledge we need to have to handle such events.
Unreliable Airspeed is nothing new, most have probably experienced it during their career I know I have it's no diff in some ways than as I have mentioned an engine failure 'cause it's mechanical & can fail so we deal with it as per our training.
To me the highest proportion of blame lies with the Commander but it goes further than that.
If you want to break down this accident blame game ('cause humans are good at this) then you could start with the Capt (as he's the ultimate responsibility on the day)then the F/O's ( if the Capt wasn't avail then the next highest F/O is in CMD) then the designers of both the Airbus itself (Boeings have plenty of crashes under their belts as well just to be balanced) & the Pitot probes as well as the Co's check & trainers inc the Owners/managers all the way down to the Wright Bro's for getting us all in this mess in the first place!:-)
It crashed, man made it (the machine) & made it crash & they will continue to do so 'till the end of time.
So who do we blame here? You chose as like the Airbus itself there's more than one way to skin this cat!:-)
Remember we are all pilots, engineers & aviation enthusiasts so we can all learn something everyday
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 15th May 2013 at 00:14.
That's true 'Trent' as mentioned in my above post & in some ways blame could be at them (the Capt in particular)but on the day we are ALL responsible for our own actions whether it be ordering a sandwich or flying a plane.
Although you could have the best well trained pilot in the seat & still lose the plane, remember humans fail we are fallible
Wmk2
Although you could have the best well trained pilot in the seat & still lose the plane, remember humans fail we are fallible
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 14th May 2013 at 23:46.
More than likely covered in the AF 447 thread, but what about the decision to delay the replacement of the suspect make of pitots? Bean counters?
They sure as sh!t replaced them as a priority after the event!
QF one back in '99 may have just avoided the 19th hole at Bangkok, if the use of reverse thrust hadn't been trained out of that crew. Bean counters?
They sure as sh!t reinitiated the use of reverse thrust as the rule rather than the exception after that event!
The point I'm making is that even though pilots are often, and in many cases turn out to be, the last line of defense, the initial hole in the cheese quite often belongs to decisions made at a much more "ground based" level.
They sure as sh!t replaced them as a priority after the event!
QF one back in '99 may have just avoided the 19th hole at Bangkok, if the use of reverse thrust hadn't been trained out of that crew. Bean counters?
They sure as sh!t reinitiated the use of reverse thrust as the rule rather than the exception after that event!
The point I'm making is that even though pilots are often, and in many cases turn out to be, the last line of defense, the initial hole in the cheese quite often belongs to decisions made at a much more "ground based" level.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bean counters?
I blame the airworthiness authorities for being so slow to recognise that there are fatal flaws with the man/machine interface in these highly automated aircraft. These problems were evident well before Air France 447, and are not confined to Airbus types.
I find it frightening just how overwhelmed a crew can become when faced with even minor problems in these aircraft. These are highly trained and experienced crews, but their effectiveness is reduced to the point where a couple of passengers at the controls would be just as effective.
The interface seems to be designed primarily around normal operations (where all systems and instrumentation are functioning properly). Given that these aircraft spend 99.95% of their time in such normal operations, this is understandable, but for abnormal situations such as those AF447 found itself in, the interface can then work against the pilot - as we have seen.
What seems to have been lacking in the certification process is some rigorous testing of the human factors when things go abnormal. At the moment, this testing is being done by real world pilots on real world flights, with passengers on board.
Every now and then, we get some of those test results back. AF447 for example.
Point taken FGD135, and if you don't mind me saying, your post was well considered and informed.
I guess what I may have failed to articulate, was the deferral (by the various departments/authorities) to the Bean counters.
I guess what I may have failed to articulate, was the deferral (by the various departments/authorities) to the Bean counters.
Last edited by KRUSTY 34; 16th May 2013 at 05:23.
Let's not bag Air France, after all only 10 hull losses in 38 years, including the only loss of a 340, obviously a pretty sound safety system in place there? Maybe they should go back to drinking wine with dinner.
Most of the airlines I have worked for required hand flying in the sim, in fact one required every second sim to be around 50% manual flying
Unreliable airspeed is a recall and none of the recall items are full back stick, if old mate had done absolutely nothing the aeroplane would pretty much have flown itself.
Most of the airlines I have worked for required hand flying in the sim, in fact one required every second sim to be around 50% manual flying
Unreliable airspeed is a recall and none of the recall items are full back stick, if old mate had done absolutely nothing the aeroplane would pretty much have flown itself.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if old mate had done absolutely nothing the aeroplane would pretty much have flown itself.
Last edited by Avgas172; 16th May 2013 at 08:25. Reason: added a 'many'
I'd love to hear plankys sentiments regarding how a professional pilot stalled a sophisticated airliner that is supposed to be 'unstallable '
His comments:
Is actually relevant 
His comments:
Originally Posted by Plankbender
Again, as an ATPL with (potential) responsibility for the travelling public, I urge you to revisit some of the basics! I just hope you never have to try to remember how to recognise a stall or incipient spin or the relevant recovery in a hurry, it might end in
I'll settle when you tell me you won't take unsuspecting passengers or try to teach others to fly until you know your basics
I'll settle when you tell me you won't take unsuspecting passengers or try to teach others to fly until you know your basics
