Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

AF 447 report out

Wikiposts
Search
Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

AF 447 report out

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12th Jul 2012, 14:28
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by TripleBravo
(mainly due to the mishandling of the Mulhouse case), I don't think anymore that there is any relevant or "protective" link.
There wasn't before. The BEA did nothing wrong during that investigation - but in order to pre-empt the criminal proceedings, Capt. Asseline's lawyers spread a lot of muck around via the press in the hope that some of the mud would appear to stick.

The irony of the situation was that the BEA's AF296 report itself lay most of the cause at the door of Air France (due to serious organisational failings), and had Asseline's lawyers not tried to muddy the waters by making it about Asseline vs. Airbus, then Asseline himself would have probably got away with not much more than a slap on the wrist.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2012, 15:05
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SadPole
1. We are fooling ourselves that human beings are capable of logical reasoning, especially when it comes to split-second decisions in a stressful situation.
Actually, experience suggests that some are and some aren't. The problem is that it is very difficult to tell which person will fall into which category until it actually happens.

A kid who practiced for say an hour a day for a few weeks on a toy simulator on some game station would most likely have a better instinctive reaction to the stall warning than the hero of our story did.
Speculation with no supporting evidence. There's a *massive* difference between experiencing the sequence in the sim versus doing it for real (especially when doing it for real involves a body clock expecting circadian rhythms). Also, the chances of making a successful recovery hinge on being prepared - I hadn't touched the controls of an aircraft since I last climbed out of a Chipmunk trainer in 1993, yet managed to recover an A320 sim with the AF447 conditions programmed. This doesn't make me a pilot - my advantage was entirely because I knew what to expect.

4. It is absolutely true that a true ace pilot, one that committed his whole life to aviation, could NOT be affected by even most illogical configuration of plane controls. Even if someone/something all of a sudden re-wired the whole damn sidestick backwards, a guy like that would figure it out in a few seconds, because he committed his whole life into merging his mind and body with every flying device he could put his hands on.
Then please explain why there are at least five dead astronauts and cosmonauts who were lost in training accidents. No matter how good you are, sometimes it's just not your day.

With all due respect, I find your use of "aces/wolves" versus "vegetables" not only insulting but incredibly distasteful. It's a lot more complicated than that.


8. If you think vegatable pilots are bad, imagine vegetable engineers, people who never had any desire to create new things, and are perfectly happy to do little besides playing office politics. Yes – the corporate engineering is full of those...
Not when developing new products in aviation you don't.

9. I have never worked for Airbus, so I don't know how bad (or good) things are over there. But the companies I worked for, the things that I have seen made my skin crawl.

...

Generally, one vegetable engineer, most likely the boss's top ass-kisser would come up with the idea in order to promote his position, then convince everyone that that's what the boss wanted. Then everyone goes along and does not dare to question things. Not daring becomes its own logic and so it goes.
Were any of those companies in the aviation business? I've worked on many software projects, running the gamut between being brilliantly run and managed and being a complete train-wreck, but I don't think the latter methodology would wash in a top-drawer aviation engineering department. Airline management is another story, and PJ2 absolutely filleted some of the more modern practices in a post on the other thread.

As for Airbus, my old Software Engineering Prof (RIP) - who was a dyed-in-the-wool FBW sceptic - visited Toulouse in 1994 and came away impressed. Mind you, he still held their feet to the fire in public...
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2012, 15:23
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Let me add a few points (from an engineer's perspective – If I am saying something stupid – I do expect a very strong – WTF are you talking about – see below).


.....

imagine vegetable engineers, people who never had any desire to create new things
Every profession has these vegetables. They rarely rise to command where processes are defined against standards and regulated by outside sources.

Thus in this case it's only imagination
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2012, 16:25
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Accoustic signals from ULB

Page 83 Final report
The first search phase aimed at detecting and locating the acoustic signals transmitted
by the Underwater Locator Beacon (ULB) fitted on each flight recorder
(8)
. As a priority,
the aeroplane’s planned flight path as well as the greatest possible area inside the
40 NM circle was swept by two Towed Pinger Locators (TPL)
(9)
.
No signal from either of the beacons was detected by the sensors deployed in the
area despite TPL passing by, on two occasions, not far from the debris field, on 22
and 23 June 2009.
Sonar imaging systems with the ability to recognise components on the sea bed were
deployed during the phases that followed.
I don't find any explications about why the signals were not detected
I don't find any in the BEA report about investigations on this problem (if the beacons were active at time .. or if they find some defects for explain the failure of detection ...)

Last edited by jcjeant; 12th Jul 2012 at 16:26.
jcjeant is offline  
Old 12th Jul 2012, 17:13
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by soylentgreen
upon re-reading my words, they did come across snarky and like a cheap shot, so I apologize.
No need to apologize, harshness was mine.

Originally Posted by soylentgreen
I said "it would be fun" and "The outcome would be quite interesting."
Agree it could turn out to be fun & interesting, not necessary for the same reasons, though.

Originally Posted by soylentgreen
Some things we can: training and machines. I'm simply saying that
we should think of the big picture here, and improve the things that we do control.
Agree, but big picture is autopilots resigning almost daily in cruise levels (no need to have UAS) and most of the occurrences getting sorted out without anyone noticing. AF447 is just a detail, very significant and very ugly though.

Originally Posted by soylentgreen
How many miles do we need google's robot cars to have accident-free before we trust them?
Aviation has it covered in certification processes. As soon as robots show functionality and reliability of human pilots, we'll have pilotless aeroplanes. Don't hold your breath waiting for it, key issue is still functionality, with latest computers being no significantly better than ENIAC.

Originally Posted by soylentgreen
The "naturalistic" study shows that 1 of 37 crews in similar situations crashed. As I mentioned, that's such a small sample size that we can't say whether the actual percentage is closer to 0% or closer to 10%.
My point was that since a) level of safety currently achieved makes sample very small b) there are so many variables that affect the outcome, if we want to learn something in order to further advance aviation safety, we can not rely on statistics to get any meaningful result. That is something known since at least mid 90ies (that's about time I started paying attention) - at the time "swiss cheese" and "accident chain" analogies were accepted and it was recognized it wasn't enough just to analyze accidents but also a close calls, where all safety features failed except one or two and result was no one hurt, no damage when it could easily ended otherwise.

Now if we apply numerology, and boldly and deceptively call it statistics, to the sample provided by BEA in interim 3 by assuming that survival means no problem while crash means manual handling of the aeroplane deficiency, we'd come to conclusion that it's not such a big deal if just 3% of crews are unable to control the aeroplane when hit with UAS. Of course it is deeply wrong conclusion and you were on the right track when you mentioned "survived for wrong reasons". To discover what were wrong reasons, we need detailed case studies, not just statistical analysis of contributing factors. BEA has analyzed 13 out of 36 discovered cases of UAS and added one which couldn't be analyzed; case of TAM 332 on Nov 12 2003. Both pilots pulled as airspeed was lost but then pushed when stall warning went off so we need to resolve why some pilots perceived and understood the warning while some didn't.

Chapter 1.17.1.5.4 is also pretty damning.

Originally Posted by Nemrytter
It's not yet published but should be in a month or two.
I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by deSitter
At what point was the "deep stall" unrecoverable?
Insufficient data to tell whether it was unrecoverable. No one felt suicidal enough to fly the AF447 profile for real.

Originally Posted by deSitter
What exactly is a deep stall?
Something of no concern on A330/340.
Originally Posted by deSitter
Was the trim issue the main obstacle to recovery?
Not trim, crew.

Originally Posted by triple bravo
every significant "stick down" input was followed by a) THS forward movement, b) pitch decrease and c) airspeed increase.
Not quite, THS remained at full nose-up, elevators moved from full nose up to half-nose up and that was enough for nose and AoA to go down. Good indication there was no deep stall but not definite proof - now this sentence should give ammo to conspiracy theorists.

Originally Posted by notfred
Is this true for other modern jets?
I guess not, especially for those that need to have mach trim e.g. 757. Issue is that if you know procedures, recognize when they need to be applied and follow them, you need not to know whether your aeroplane suffers from mach buffet or not.

Originally Posted by Sadpole
We are fooling ourselves that human beings are capable of logical reasoning
Most of the time, they are.

Originally Posted by Sadpole
true that a true ace pilot, one that committed his whole life to aviation, could NOT be affected by even most illogical configuration of plane controls.
False. Air has no respect for anybody. It is ignorant who coined the phrase "beginner's mistake". Experience is double edged sword, as the experienced "ace" often does not recognize the times he tempted the fate and is bound to repeat the feat. With a bit of luck, such an "ace" can live to retirement.

Originally Posted by SadPole
the whole system was demonstrated to be a complete failure
You condemned the whole system based on single accident. Such a feat can not be excessively serious.

Originally Posted by SadPole
imagine vegetable engineers, people who never had any desire to create new things,
Vegetable is as vegetable does. Just because you don't like some aspect of the machine, it doesn't mean it's bad or that improving it would cause massive degradation of other aspects.

Originally Posted by Triple Bravo
mishandling of the Mulhouse case
Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by TripleBravo
Why are certification requirements not adapted to recent findings?
Accident investigators have only the power of advice. Also their scope is limited to accident at hand.

Originally Posted by TripleBravo
They weren't suicidal, they fought for their own lifes as well and sadly lost.
They fought for their lives by tying the noose around the neck and jumping off the stool, without ever recognizing there's a rope.

Originally Posted by TripleBravo
How come that flying manually is something not much appreciated in the industry?
PPRuNe is not the industry.

Originally Posted by TripleBravo
The captain wasn't in his seat, and due to his CV I'm convinced he would have had the abilities to handfly without major problems.
Have a go at BEA's report. While there were deficiencies noted, 36 crews given the manual control of the aeroplane performed well enough not to kill anyone. I doubt they had more manual training at high levels than AF crews. Some were AF crews.

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Then please explain why there are at least five dead astronauts and cosmonauts who were lost in training accidents.
If extend the scope to display flying, we may add Rimantas Stankevičius, Buran test pilot, to the list. Devoted, experienced, professional. One day overhead Salgareda he entered split-S too low.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:01
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It does not enter my mind to apologize to BOAC. He belitteled my first post ever on Pprune, and I have seen him do it to others in many threads on various topics. He thinks he knows it all. I have always detested such persons.
svhar is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:21
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Who is so dumb, with only 20 posts, to argue with the king of Pprune with more than 15.000 posts. Only me is that stupid. When does he sleep? Time for family? Let alone, when does he have time to fly for a living? I know the type.

And even, if BOAC retired when he startet posting, it is like asking the Wright brothers to comment on the 787.

Last edited by svhar; 14th Jul 2012 at 01:35.
svhar is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:37
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Danger

svhar,
I'm still a (non-piloting) newbie here, and I've been flapping my lips here for 200 posts in a quest for knowledge, no doubt revealing my utter unsuitibility to sit at this table. Please note that Clandestino, whom I often don't wholly agree with, has never once singled me out for public (or private) humiliation. Why not?

So you are forced to consider that an interaction between two people has two contributors, and one of them is you. Anyway, the problem will doubtless be resolved when the moderators realize that you're resorting to deeply sarcastic and personal remarks, noticeably lacking in any on topic content.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:44
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Philippines
Posts: 360
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Hi Svhar, You wont get on with everyone on this forum and I dont either, but suggest you call a truce. Well done on winning the Eurocup in football by the way!
ChrisJ800 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:46
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
svhar,

Quote by svhar:Only me is that stupid
I have to agree with you...
Turbine D is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 01:51
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are right, Organfreak. My respect to you. I'll withdraw from this discussion as from now. And sorry, BOAC, I just had to pay back.
svhar is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 02:11
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are right, Organfreak.
Oh, you'll soon get used to that!

I'll withdraw from this discussion as from now.
Seems unnecessary...
Organfreak is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 15:58
  #353 (permalink)  

DOVE
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Myself
Age: 77
Posts: 1,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BOAC
have nothing to say to svhar?
No "secret" to reveal?
And I refuse to believe you are so venal as to give your opinion only on payment.
I repeat always three, four, five ... times my advice to my students.
If we want to reform this "kind of aviation" with our experience we must not stop withstand the exuberance of youth who want to follow in our footsteps.
DOVES is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 16:42
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I beg Clandestino's pardon; apparently I was confused about who was fighting with whom. Guess it was BOAC. Ooops!
Organfreak is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 17:02
  #355 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by doves
have nothing to say to svhar?
- no. I suspect the 'put down' referred to was under another of svhar's usernames.

The rest leaves me bewildered. Can we return to the thread topic?

Last edited by BOAC; 14th Jul 2012 at 17:04.
BOAC is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 17:30
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,201
Received 401 Likes on 248 Posts
Can we return to the thread topic?
Capital idea.

This thought seems to be worth comment within the context of the accident under discussion.

3. For this reason, there is something fundamentally wrong, I think, with counting hours of watching autopilot do its thing as “flying experience.”

With the emergence of present day-autopilots the process of judging pilots' experience should have been redefined long ago.

One way to do it would be to count takeoffs and landings, which would promote pilots who did time on smaller planes long before they were allowed to touch commercial jets.

However, I do not see pilots talking about changing that system. Maybe they should.
There is quite a bit to chew on regarding this nested set of thoughts. One of the ways the "system" mitigates for errors in selection is that there is a team, a crew, on the flight deck who are, if you believe the CRM principles in vogue, in a position to detect and correct one another's errors, or help out when task loading factor is greater than one pilot.

This isn't the only accident where two pilots were not enough, due to a variety of factors.

Also, I find "takeoffs and landings" a bit misleading, since the entire terminal phase, and into landing, is a more apt area for needing experience. Wrecks in terminal phase are often marked by failure to reach the runway.

As to "takeoff," I'd want to address the entire departure phase for experiential basis.

AF447 happened during cruise, which is not the most common phase for mishap.

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th Jul 2012 at 17:33.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 17:37
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:
Quote:
I know the AL defeats Reselect, but what does it do with an AP left ON?
It turns it OFF and latches it OFF until ground crews perform maintenance.


BBB... Right....but the A/P appears to have been "ON" throughout? Isn't that potentially lethal?
Lyman is offline  
Old 14th Jul 2012, 21:30
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Lyman
the A/P appears to have been "ON" throughout? Isn't that potentially lethal?
Kinda reminds me of Rip Van Winkle. If we are discussing the AF447 in this thread, then AP dropped off and was never re-engaged. My apologies if it is me who is posting in the wrong thread.
Originally Posted by Organfreak
I beg Clandestino's pardon
Huh? What? Why? Whatever.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 08:19
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: EU
Posts: 644
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Training

Contacted:
I'm not so sure this is sufficiently trained into us.
How about not trained at all?
I have never been in or seen a (high altitude) full stall in the sim. Only the customary straight-and-level bleed the speed off till the buffet comes.

Quote from Boeing'sAerodynamic Principles of Large-Airplane Upsets
A stall must not be confused with the stall warning that alerts the pilot to an approaching stall. Recovery from an approach to stall is not the same as a recovery from an actual stall. An approach to stall is a controlled flight maneuver; a stall is an out-of-control, but recoverable, condition.
golfyankeesierra is offline  
Old 15th Jul 2012, 12:44
  #360 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
High altitude full stall recovery training is making its way into the sims. I did it last week.

In the Boeings you have to work at it to keep it stalled, but we were doing a falling leaf, descending at 11000 ft/min, 10 degrees nose up at firewall thrust.

The recovery required 20-30 degrees nose down and lots of patience (and altitude) waiting for the speed to build to the point where the stall to became a nose down unusual attitude you could fly out of without entering a secondary stall.

I do not have any time in Airbuses. I can say that all you folks who are saying it should not/would not happen and to whom it would not have happened were not (thankfully) there in the middle of the night in the middle of the ocean in the middle of the weather dealing with contradictory information in a situation that went from straight and level to deadly in the span of a few breaths.

I bow to your mad airmanship skills.
BobnSpike is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.