Did you enjoy 60 Minutes last night?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did you enjoy 60 Minutes last night?
A very tabloid story on the Air France A330 accident. It did however bring into the mainstream media a story that needs to be brought to the public's attention. How qualified is the crew of your aircraft? Personally I make an informed choice about who I and my family fly with, I'm lucky, I know a little about how airlines recruit and train their pilots. There are some airlines I would not step foot on.
How did any of those pilots get an airline gig when they could not recognise a stalled condition?
What is this company doing in their sim checks?
Is there such a thing as a stall stick position in an Airbus? It's all well and good for a computer to override a pilot's control input if it's 'outside the envelope' but this aircraft still ended up in a stalled condition. Where was the computer then?
I still for the life of me cannot understand why an aircraft manufacturer would have different indications concurrently through the control stick i.e. one pilot has full back stick and the other pilot cannot feel this through his stick...........
There are a huge amount of issues associated with this accident, the mind boggles at the implications.
How did any of those pilots get an airline gig when they could not recognise a stalled condition?
What is this company doing in their sim checks?
Is there such a thing as a stall stick position in an Airbus? It's all well and good for a computer to override a pilot's control input if it's 'outside the envelope' but this aircraft still ended up in a stalled condition. Where was the computer then?
I still for the life of me cannot understand why an aircraft manufacturer would have different indications concurrently through the control stick i.e. one pilot has full back stick and the other pilot cannot feel this through his stick...........
There are a huge amount of issues associated with this accident, the mind boggles at the implications.
Didn't see it but good points raised. I agree, how does one not recognise a stalled condition as a pilot. That stuff is drilled at the GFPT level. Or how not even recognise the symptoms of an impending stall. Basics of operating an aircraft. Yeh the mind does boggle 
It seems absolutely baffling to any pilot looking at it after the event.
The 60 mins story was fine for Joe public.
A very experienced older pilot once put it very succinctly to me in conversation. He said it would not have happened in a Boeing, not because of the difference in cockpit philosophies or computer systems, but because a Boeing has a big control yoke that you can see being pushed forward or pulled back. The control inputs are clear to all in the cockpit.
The 60 mins story was fine for Joe public.
A very experienced older pilot once put it very succinctly to me in conversation. He said it would not have happened in a Boeing, not because of the difference in cockpit philosophies or computer systems, but because a Boeing has a big control yoke that you can see being pushed forward or pulled back. The control inputs are clear to all in the cockpit.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This accident like all accidents/incidents was a chain of events, ICE was the initial culprit leading to false indications then followed a chain of events that led to a disastrous result.
I believe even a seasoned pilot can make mistakes (as we have all too often seen on Air Crash shows, even a classic stall with a conventional control column) when under duress being presented with conflicting instrument readings.
The somewhat inexperienced pilots where presented with multiple aural & visual (inst readings) conflicting warnings all in the middle of the night & where taken by surprise, something that any pilot would initially be disorientated with.That's not an excuse I know but it's just one link in the chain of events, a major one that was most likely the catalyst for the end sad result.
Since then Airbus has learnt much & the results/changes are happening this very day in Sims.
Humans only ever learn from their mistakes, like the machines we are fallible & with automation dependance these days that's a dangerous combination in the above scenario as we are trained to believe our instruments.
There's been copious amounts of data presented on this accident for anyone's viewing above & beyond some TV report.
Wmk2
I believe even a seasoned pilot can make mistakes (as we have all too often seen on Air Crash shows, even a classic stall with a conventional control column) when under duress being presented with conflicting instrument readings.
The somewhat inexperienced pilots where presented with multiple aural & visual (inst readings) conflicting warnings all in the middle of the night & where taken by surprise, something that any pilot would initially be disorientated with.That's not an excuse I know but it's just one link in the chain of events, a major one that was most likely the catalyst for the end sad result.
Since then Airbus has learnt much & the results/changes are happening this very day in Sims.
Humans only ever learn from their mistakes, like the machines we are fallible & with automation dependance these days that's a dangerous combination in the above scenario as we are trained to believe our instruments.
There's been copious amounts of data presented on this accident for anyone's viewing above & beyond some TV report.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 13th May 2013 at 00:41.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing really new was exposed, but some old familiar causes came back to haunt industry - A simple fault/issue turned into a disaster.
Ice was the root cause, however I haven't heard any more about the pitot tube in question? I know Air France changed the pitots on their fleet, as well as other operators, but why did the pitots freeze when the heaters were switched on?
Pilot error was a contributing factor, as were crew flight deck gradient, Capt had around 11000 hours and F/O's with around 6000 and 3000 from memory.
Still unanswered is why El Capitaino put F/O 2 in charge? The weather was bad but why F/O 2 in the R/H was in control and why F/O 1 in the L/H wasn't.
Also the circadian rhythm chestnut, accident occurred around 0200, again back of clock flying and the ability for crew to operate at 100% clarity has always been a challenge. I can't recall if that was a significant or even minor finding?
Also this is not the first accident to occur where a stall stick shaker function could have been more of an accurate warning to the crew. Perhaps if the A330 had a stick shaker function the crew would have then known that the instruments were or had been giving spurious readings and they would have pushed the nose down and punched the throttles?
I agree the crew could have, should have saved this one, they were the last line of defence, the last chance, however they didn't. Once the Capt realised exactly what was going on it was too late to save the ship, from memory the penny dropped when they were at about 4000 feet. No chance.
Perhaps this yet another example of 'tombstone technology'?
R.I.P
Ice was the root cause, however I haven't heard any more about the pitot tube in question? I know Air France changed the pitots on their fleet, as well as other operators, but why did the pitots freeze when the heaters were switched on?
Pilot error was a contributing factor, as were crew flight deck gradient, Capt had around 11000 hours and F/O's with around 6000 and 3000 from memory.
Still unanswered is why El Capitaino put F/O 2 in charge? The weather was bad but why F/O 2 in the R/H was in control and why F/O 1 in the L/H wasn't.
Also the circadian rhythm chestnut, accident occurred around 0200, again back of clock flying and the ability for crew to operate at 100% clarity has always been a challenge. I can't recall if that was a significant or even minor finding?
Also this is not the first accident to occur where a stall stick shaker function could have been more of an accurate warning to the crew. Perhaps if the A330 had a stick shaker function the crew would have then known that the instruments were or had been giving spurious readings and they would have pushed the nose down and punched the throttles?
I agree the crew could have, should have saved this one, they were the last line of defence, the last chance, however they didn't. Once the Capt realised exactly what was going on it was too late to save the ship, from memory the penny dropped when they were at about 4000 feet. No chance.
Perhaps this yet another example of 'tombstone technology'?
R.I.P
Since then Airbus has learnt much & the results/changes are happening this very day in Sims.
But has it modified the system eg made the Stall Warning stay on at all low airpseeds instead of cutting out below 60kts?? No wonder the magenta kids were confused.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To get a modern day airliner to go below 60 kts whilst airborne is or would be a very rare event. Prior to that speed there would be continuous warnings to the fact of low or reducing airspeed so having the stall continue blw such a low speed is at that point in time purely academic.
Training of more manual manipulation of the flight controls as well as recognition of upset flight characteristics is one way to keep the pilot in the loop if it ever occurred but remembering every day around the world aircraft perform thousands of normal flights in adverse conditions without incident so having regular exposure to such training (manual flight) isn't feasible in a now very cost aware industry.
You design/build a peace of machinery & train it's operators to handle every event that's likely to happen in the day to day operation of that equipment but you can't train them to be 100% ready all the time for every problem no matter how remote.
Man has been crashing heavier than air machines since the "Wrong Bro's" (it's their bloody fault for getting off their bikes in the first place!) but we simply do our best & that's all anyone can ask of a human.
Every accident in aviation paves the way for safer flying in the future, that's why we are where we are today.
Wmk2
Training of more manual manipulation of the flight controls as well as recognition of upset flight characteristics is one way to keep the pilot in the loop if it ever occurred but remembering every day around the world aircraft perform thousands of normal flights in adverse conditions without incident so having regular exposure to such training (manual flight) isn't feasible in a now very cost aware industry.
You design/build a peace of machinery & train it's operators to handle every event that's likely to happen in the day to day operation of that equipment but you can't train them to be 100% ready all the time for every problem no matter how remote.
Man has been crashing heavier than air machines since the "Wrong Bro's" (it's their bloody fault for getting off their bikes in the first place!) but we simply do our best & that's all anyone can ask of a human.
Every accident in aviation paves the way for safer flying in the future, that's why we are where we are today.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 13th May 2013 at 02:35.
Not having seen the episode, but having read some stuff to date, I find it hard to believe that a) Airbus would let something out in the wild that was so sensitive to a foreseeable icing problem, and b) you could fully stall an aircraft wings level from the flight levels all the way to the ground, without any indication of a wing drop or roll instability. Are these things that stable?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What gets me about this accident is the attitude of other pilots towards the Air France crew.
The general attitude is along the lines of:
They were hopeless pilots - couldn't even recognise a stall - but I'm not, so I'm safe and have nothing to worry about.
Yes, its very easy from the comfort of your lounge chair to criticise this crew and claim that things would have been different if you were in the cockpit that night.
This is an arrogant ignorance - a quality which makes these commentators just as dangerous as pilots as what they are alleging the Air France pilots to be.
What about British Airways pilots? How about United pilots? How about Qantas pilots?
There was over 20,000 hours of flying experience in that cockpit when the aircraft finally hit the ocean.
There are fatal flaws in the man/machine interface of today's highly automated aircraft, but they are well hidden. It takes a certain combination of circumstances to bring them out. And when it happens, we find ourselves scratching our heads at how apparently simple the accident was to avoid.
It's not so simple.
I believe that had the pilots been from Qantas, or any other airline, the result would probably have been the same.
Care to be more specific? I'm not aware of any changes that have yet filtered through to flight training. There has been plenty of discussion, but I believe we are still largely in the head-scratching phase over this accident.
This is just one of the dozens (hundreds?) of little design "quirks" that can align with other little, seemingly harmless quirks to bring down a modern, well-maintained airliner - flown by highly trained and experienced western pilots.
It's not so simple. If it could happen to them, it could happen to you.
The general attitude is along the lines of:
They were hopeless pilots - couldn't even recognise a stall - but I'm not, so I'm safe and have nothing to worry about.
Yes, its very easy from the comfort of your lounge chair to criticise this crew and claim that things would have been different if you were in the cockpit that night.
This is an arrogant ignorance - a quality which makes these commentators just as dangerous as pilots as what they are alleging the Air France pilots to be.
What about British Airways pilots? How about United pilots? How about Qantas pilots?
There was over 20,000 hours of flying experience in that cockpit when the aircraft finally hit the ocean.
There are fatal flaws in the man/machine interface of today's highly automated aircraft, but they are well hidden. It takes a certain combination of circumstances to bring them out. And when it happens, we find ourselves scratching our heads at how apparently simple the accident was to avoid.
It's not so simple.
I believe that had the pilots been from Qantas, or any other airline, the result would probably have been the same.
Since then Airbus has learnt much & the results/changes are happening this very day in Sims.
eg made the Stall Warning stay on at all low airpseeds instead of
cutting out below 60kts??
cutting out below 60kts??
It's not so simple. If it could happen to them, it could happen to you.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Our trainers have been pushing hard on unreliable airspeed training with a high altitude emphasis so I guess there have been some changes following Air France going into the drink..
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"FGD" check yr "Bus" QRH (If yr bus endo's) the Stall Recovery proc wasn't even in there (QRH) pre France 447 crash. That amended proc as well as training for it in the Sim is the result, hence we are seeing the procedures being implemented today in the Sim. It's now the belief that thrust which was once thought to be all part of a stall recovery proc in the first instance shouldn't be the first reaction to a stall.
We had Airbus test pilots sit in with us at the Sim some time ago & they strenuously insisted that lowering the nose (reduce AoA) was priority No 1, (that's the first action as per QRH) forget the thrust at first that's the 3rd action down the list.
Wmk2
We had Airbus test pilots sit in with us at the Sim some time ago & they strenuously insisted that lowering the nose (reduce AoA) was priority No 1, (that's the first action as per QRH) forget the thrust at first that's the 3rd action down the list.
Wmk2
Not good enough, Wally. The main reason we're in the cockpit is to handle the unexpected/abnormal. If the industry can't/won't train us to cope, then prangs like this will re-occur. Of course, having a machine that does things differently when it has spat the dummy is IMO one of the main causes here. Surely you are not justifying the 60kt feature? Also, nice touch, the full auto-trim back as it slowed down... While making it easy to fly normally, if oyu were putting in incorrect pitch inputs, why would you want the stab to exacerbate those inputs by trimming with you?
A big part of this was the "surprise" aspect. It's all well and good in the sim, even if you do don't exactly know what is going happen; you will probably cope as you are at a hightened state of alertness and already thinking out of the box. On the line is a different matter. Hours and hours of autopilot flying doesn't help the stick and rudder skills, which I'm convinced in turn help one correctly diagnose this sort of situation.
AF 447 had roll oscillations up to 40° and did an almost 240° right turn whilst descending.
A big part of this was the "surprise" aspect. It's all well and good in the sim, even if you do don't exactly know what is going happen; you will probably cope as you are at a hightened state of alertness and already thinking out of the box. On the line is a different matter. Hours and hours of autopilot flying doesn't help the stick and rudder skills, which I'm convinced in turn help one correctly diagnose this sort of situation.
you could fully stall an aircraft wings level from the flight levels all the way to the ground, without any indication of a wing drop or roll instability. Are these things that stable?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melb
Posts: 2,162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's fine 'blogsy' I was just answering yr query re what's changed being more specific. I also mentioned the 'surprise' factor in an earlier post so nothing new there. The 60 kt thingy simple means one is a LONG way behind the 8ball by then.
Probably one of the most basic things missed here by the two hapless pilots was the fact that they thought they/he needed to climb (pull back on the stick & hold it there) to reduce the ever increasing airspeed (due ice). All pilots at that level ought to know that a large heavy airliner flying along at say 37000' doesn't have enuf energy by way of excess thrust to make it suddenly go a lot faster.
I didn't invent the Aeroplane & I didn't design the Airbus so I listen to the designers/makers as I am but just a very small part of the whole process.
Wmk2
Probably one of the most basic things missed here by the two hapless pilots was the fact that they thought they/he needed to climb (pull back on the stick & hold it there) to reduce the ever increasing airspeed (due ice). All pilots at that level ought to know that a large heavy airliner flying along at say 37000' doesn't have enuf energy by way of excess thrust to make it suddenly go a lot faster.
I didn't invent the Aeroplane & I didn't design the Airbus so I listen to the designers/makers as I am but just a very small part of the whole process.
Wmk2
Last edited by Wally Mk2; 13th May 2013 at 04:54.
A very experienced older pilot once put it very succinctly to me in conversation. He said it would not have happened in a Boeing, not because of the difference in cockpit philosophies or computer systems, but because a Boeing has a big control yoke that you can see being pushed forward or pulled back. The control inputs are clear to all in the cockpit.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It struck me that there was more to this situation than meets the eye.
Why did they fly through the guts of this storm? (Not a criticism, a question. Is it that difficult to thread your way through the ITCZ?) I have seen on radar diversions of more than 200 miles from track.
Capt, aged 58 but 'only' 11,000 hours? Is that a little unusual? What were his 11,000 hours on? He seemed just as confused as his low hour F/O & S/O?
There were about 20 holes in this block of cheese, many, many more than other accidents I've read about over the years.
I didn't start this thread to have a crack at pilots. And it has been discussed ad nauseum for a couple of years. For me, this goes back to when all 3 of these blokes first stepped foot in a lighty & the stall training they were given? I'd like a little focus on that. And you'll never convince me that the control stick setup in these things is a good thing in any shape.
Why did they fly through the guts of this storm? (Not a criticism, a question. Is it that difficult to thread your way through the ITCZ?) I have seen on radar diversions of more than 200 miles from track.
Capt, aged 58 but 'only' 11,000 hours? Is that a little unusual? What were his 11,000 hours on? He seemed just as confused as his low hour F/O & S/O?
There were about 20 holes in this block of cheese, many, many more than other accidents I've read about over the years.
I didn't start this thread to have a crack at pilots. And it has been discussed ad nauseum for a couple of years. For me, this goes back to when all 3 of these blokes first stepped foot in a lighty & the stall training they were given? I'd like a little focus on that. And you'll never convince me that the control stick setup in these things is a good thing in any shape.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Melbourne
Age: 60
Posts: 952
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Crash Investigation it wasn't, but for a 60 Minutes clip directed to an Australian audience it wasn't too bad.
As for the rest, all good comments guys, but there is a 55 page thread already running on this...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...rt-out-55.html
DIVOSH!
As for the rest, all good comments guys, but there is a 55 page thread already running on this...
http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/4...rt-out-55.html
DIVOSH!
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135, spot on. If you look at Pilots as a line of defence rather that the culprits, you soon see that several factors came into play. Just because the pilots were a link in the chain, and the last line of defence, it doesn't make them totally to blame. Those guys never boarded that flight hoping to die.
Jack, good point as well mate. Some valid unanswered questions still. I am not 100% on this theory but I heard somewhere that the wx radar was showing one large cell on their heading yet a larger line was tucked away behind the first cell? Also I hear that the cell line stretched around 300 nm and that some cells extended up into the troposphere so flying above was not an option? Maybe somebody else has more info on that.
Regardless, the poor Drivers got dudded with dodgy pitot tubes and an aircraft that didn't have a stick shaker type function, ridiculous.
I'm not taking away a measure of blame from them, but for media and others to blame them completely is absurd, but not unexpected as pilots will always be a convenient scapegoat for manufacturers and the Airlines.
Hopefully lessons have been learned, however I still hear airline management say Pilots are almost redundant and are not nearly as important as the aircraft itself. AF447 proved that is not the case.
Jack, good point as well mate. Some valid unanswered questions still. I am not 100% on this theory but I heard somewhere that the wx radar was showing one large cell on their heading yet a larger line was tucked away behind the first cell? Also I hear that the cell line stretched around 300 nm and that some cells extended up into the troposphere so flying above was not an option? Maybe somebody else has more info on that.
Regardless, the poor Drivers got dudded with dodgy pitot tubes and an aircraft that didn't have a stick shaker type function, ridiculous.
I'm not taking away a measure of blame from them, but for media and others to blame them completely is absurd, but not unexpected as pilots will always be a convenient scapegoat for manufacturers and the Airlines.
Hopefully lessons have been learned, however I still hear airline management say Pilots are almost redundant and are not nearly as important as the aircraft itself. AF447 proved that is not the case.
Last edited by my oleo is extended; 13th May 2013 at 05:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Di_Vosh,
I know there are other threads running on this, I'd prefer if this remained separate & in the Australian forum. Reason? As Australia moves away from GA recruited pilots for their airline pilots what will be the implications?
Will your 200 hour scabstar cadet pilot do 1 or 2 lessons on stalling before jumping in the right seat? How does this pilot get trained on the A320? How many sessions of stalling does this pilot do in the A320 endo? How does any scabstar captain know what their trainee FO is doing with the controls?
I know there are other threads running on this, I'd prefer if this remained separate & in the Australian forum. Reason? As Australia moves away from GA recruited pilots for their airline pilots what will be the implications?
Will your 200 hour scabstar cadet pilot do 1 or 2 lessons on stalling before jumping in the right seat? How does this pilot get trained on the A320? How many sessions of stalling does this pilot do in the A320 endo? How does any scabstar captain know what their trainee FO is doing with the controls?
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a whole I understand what happened on this unfortunate flight but if someone more familiar with the 'bus could help there is something I'm a little puzzled by.
I thought a part of the computerised fly by wire systems advantage was that it would not let a pilot get the aircraft into such an unsafe condition such as a stall while flying manually, which is why they don't have a stick shaker???
I thought a part of the computerised fly by wire systems advantage was that it would not let a pilot get the aircraft into such an unsafe condition such as a stall while flying manually, which is why they don't have a stick shaker???
