AF 447 report out
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Dublin
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTex600 Quote
If it makes you feel good blaming the pilots, go ahead, I won't change your mind. But if you consider ever flying as SLF, you might want to hope that this accident changes at least: training, procedures, and CRM procedures for Airbus control and "surprise" events.
Too true...
Pilot Training focussed upon relying upon automation and automation designed upon handing back control to Pilot when confused is proving to have created 'surprise' events more than just here.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, the aircraft technology is being pushed to the limit to achieve economical flight, however, are we reaching levels where if we are not going to put an engineer/programmer back on the flight deck or have the facility of one available in real time on the ground monitoring controls, can line training ever keep pace with emerging tech?
Had the Quantas A380 'only' had 2 pilots when it lost an engine et al, would we discussing a different outcome?
If it makes you feel good blaming the pilots, go ahead, I won't change your mind. But if you consider ever flying as SLF, you might want to hope that this accident changes at least: training, procedures, and CRM procedures for Airbus control and "surprise" events.
Too true...
Pilot Training focussed upon relying upon automation and automation designed upon handing back control to Pilot when confused is proving to have created 'surprise' events more than just here.
As has been said elsewhere in the thread, the aircraft technology is being pushed to the limit to achieve economical flight, however, are we reaching levels where if we are not going to put an engineer/programmer back on the flight deck or have the facility of one available in real time on the ground monitoring controls, can line training ever keep pace with emerging tech?
Had the Quantas A380 'only' had 2 pilots when it lost an engine et al, would we discussing a different outcome?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: australia
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2controls
Thanks for the responses re my question above about the Airbus philosophy behind having no cross-connection on the sidesticks.
I can appreciate that having control surface forces reflected in the sidesticks would be complex and expensive but that wasn't what i was asking. My question was simpler - given the sidesticks are out of view of the "other" pilot, what is the problem with having a physical indication of movement being applied to the other sidestick?
If i am used to having a free-moving sidestick but can feel resistance when the other sidestick is being used, it would register in my brain somewhere.. Yes?
Sorry for the thread creep, but it does seem odd that such a crucial control component can be "misappropriated" so easily.
I can appreciate that having control surface forces reflected in the sidesticks would be complex and expensive but that wasn't what i was asking. My question was simpler - given the sidesticks are out of view of the "other" pilot, what is the problem with having a physical indication of movement being applied to the other sidestick?
If i am used to having a free-moving sidestick but can feel resistance when the other sidestick is being used, it would register in my brain somewhere.. Yes?
Sorry for the thread creep, but it does seem odd that such a crucial control component can be "misappropriated" so easily.
The 777 is full fly by wire and it's two control columns are "interconnected", are they not?
If designers can make a complete aeroplane fly by wire through joysticks, it wouldn't be a huge effort to make the sidesticks follow each other. Where there's a will, there's a way. In Airbus' case, no will, no way.
In the AF447 case, the crew were apparently so confused that I doubt whether an indicator on the PFD or elsewhere of what the sidesticks were doing would have been any help. The PNF probably wouldn't have been able to register it.
If designers can make a complete aeroplane fly by wire through joysticks, it wouldn't be a huge effort to make the sidesticks follow each other. Where there's a will, there's a way. In Airbus' case, no will, no way.
My question was simpler - given the sidesticks are out of view of the "other" pilot, what is the problem with having a physical indication of movement being applied to the other sidestick?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Skypilot,
You brought up something interesting :
Has aircraft technology now surpassed what the human mind is capable of controlling ? Are we so technologically advanced with these a/c that no matter how great a pilot is, there is not enough training, human thinking capacity or human development to operate these a/c without properly working computers ?
Without being a pilot, I just wonder how much advancement and/or dropping an engineer could be affecting these situations ? It is horrible to see the pilots get blamed for something that no pilot, not even the sharpest, with the most experience couldnt rectify the situations they are in nowdays.
Is aviation actually safer now than it was 25 years ago ? Are there more accidents now with newer a/c than the older ones ? Will we see it become more or less dangerous with the 380 now, the 350 coming the and the 787?
You brought up something interesting :
" aircraft technology is being pushed to the limit to achieve economical flight,
however, are we reaching levels where if we are not going to put an
engineer/programmer back on the flight deck or have the facility of one
available in real time on the ground monitoring controls, can line training ever
keep pace with emerging tech?"
however, are we reaching levels where if we are not going to put an
engineer/programmer back on the flight deck or have the facility of one
available in real time on the ground monitoring controls, can line training ever
keep pace with emerging tech?"
Has aircraft technology now surpassed what the human mind is capable of controlling ? Are we so technologically advanced with these a/c that no matter how great a pilot is, there is not enough training, human thinking capacity or human development to operate these a/c without properly working computers ?
Without being a pilot, I just wonder how much advancement and/or dropping an engineer could be affecting these situations ? It is horrible to see the pilots get blamed for something that no pilot, not even the sharpest, with the most experience couldnt rectify the situations they are in nowdays.
Is aviation actually safer now than it was 25 years ago ? Are there more accidents now with newer a/c than the older ones ? Will we see it become more or less dangerous with the 380 now, the 350 coming the and the 787?
Last edited by SassyPilotsWife; 7th Jul 2012 at 16:11.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologize to some for being obvious, but I see a number of questions being asked that have been discussed ad-nauseum in the NINE sequential 447 threads over in the tech log, so for exhaustive answers for questions such as, "why are the side sticks not interconnect, or why do they not give feedback?" I suggest that one spend a day or two reading at least the last three tech log threads. sorry for the run on sentence.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Nigel on Draft
Quote: Is their no backup system available in the event of pitot tube failure?
So that means that there is no effective backup system, correct?
Quote:
This situation began because the AP disconnected, and the situation degraded because the pilots did not understand what was going on.
That was my point, there are obviously major faults in the system design.
Of course it is! But how effective was the training / skill / practice in this case?
Please do me a favour and tell me who you are and which airline you fly for, because I do not want to be on any flight under your control.
Quote: Is their no backup system available in the event of pitot tube failure?
Well, yes there is. The other 2 pitot tubes. Trouble is when there is a common problem affecting mroe than 1.
Quote:
This situation began because the AP disconnected, and the situation degraded because the pilots did not understand what was going on.
The AP disconnected precisely because 'that automated systems should be designed as an adjunct to a pilots flying skill and training' occurred - the AP was not able to determine what was happening to a sufficient degree - the system designers / regulators decided that was a point to hand it back to the crew.
Now as you say 'and the situation degraded because the pilots did not understand what was going on' and that is an issue for training / skill / practice.
Please do me a favour and tell me who you are and which airline you fly for, because I do not want to be on any flight under your control.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ttex.. WHAT ?
Go to the tech logs ? No way.. we're too cool to hang out with " those" guys. And besides, you appear much smarter. Especially in this thread 
Carry on my friend 
Carry on my friend
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: asdf
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
those tech posts are full of engineers embarring the discussion and blaming entirely the crew from the begining. The bias is total and reading those posts is an exercise of pilot sadomasochism.
Cafeclub, for that, Airbus would have to change its philosophy and stop selling the pilot as the only liability in the cockpit, try to work with them, not around them, and not think constantly about cutting costs. One of my dad friends asked one of the airbus engineers why they didnt make the thrust levers move and his answer was along the lines of " for my balls it doesnt move " so you can see the kind of attitude and respect they have for pilots.
You probably dont know, but there was an accident of an airbus 320 in bilbao years ago, the protections in the plane decided against the pilots and crashed the airplane. They blamed the crew exactly the same way they did here airbus and his acolits in the tech thread. In the end the judge gave the reason to the pilots/Iberia and airbus had to tweak the aoa protection system across all their fleets and models.
In quito a 340 ran off the rwy after spoilers, reversers and brakes didnt work i know what the captain says off the record, and that was a manipulation for him to take the entire blame after airbus saying a 1000 fpm touchdown created a 3.1 g structural damage hit.
Bull**** all over the place but truth is they are simply cheap with a philosophy that wants to pull the pilot out of the equation.
In any case what is sad is not that exists people like that, but there are pilots ( supposedly ) in these forums that are so happy with them and applaud them with the lame excuse of safety and passenger interests.
If you go to the tech forum in the last thread you can see the ambient, when the report was released with the feeling it putsthe blame on the crew, they start talking about drones and a future without pilots.
It will be funny if someday engineers decide to take their jobs away, see how they feel because someone thinks a machine can do their jobs better
Cafeclub, for that, Airbus would have to change its philosophy and stop selling the pilot as the only liability in the cockpit, try to work with them, not around them, and not think constantly about cutting costs. One of my dad friends asked one of the airbus engineers why they didnt make the thrust levers move and his answer was along the lines of " for my balls it doesnt move " so you can see the kind of attitude and respect they have for pilots.
You probably dont know, but there was an accident of an airbus 320 in bilbao years ago, the protections in the plane decided against the pilots and crashed the airplane. They blamed the crew exactly the same way they did here airbus and his acolits in the tech thread. In the end the judge gave the reason to the pilots/Iberia and airbus had to tweak the aoa protection system across all their fleets and models.
In quito a 340 ran off the rwy after spoilers, reversers and brakes didnt work i know what the captain says off the record, and that was a manipulation for him to take the entire blame after airbus saying a 1000 fpm touchdown created a 3.1 g structural damage hit.
Bull**** all over the place but truth is they are simply cheap with a philosophy that wants to pull the pilot out of the equation.
In any case what is sad is not that exists people like that, but there are pilots ( supposedly ) in these forums that are so happy with them and applaud them with the lame excuse of safety and passenger interests.
If you go to the tech forum in the last thread you can see the ambient, when the report was released with the feeling it putsthe blame on the crew, they start talking about drones and a future without pilots.
It will be funny if someday engineers decide to take their jobs away, see how they feel because someone thinks a machine can do their jobs better
Last edited by dlcmdrx; 7th Jul 2012 at 17:00.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dlcmdrx
those tech posts are full of engineers embarring the discussion and blaming entirely the crew from the begining. The bias is total and reading those posts is an exercise of pilot sadomasochism.
In defense of the tech log, the bias is not total. Many points are offered and discussed. Much of what is discussed is of no interest to me, but the level of disagreement betweenst the participants is much higher than you appear to believe.
Matter of fact, I sort of enjoy sitting back with popcorn when some of those engineers get into a pssssing contest about this accident. I think some of them might actually take the gloves off if given the chance.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr. Green, paging Dr. Green
Silly example #1: both wings fall off. 100% of pilots crash? Would you blame the pilots in this situation?
Yes Doc ! Because Captain Kirk tried to warn the flight deck that the gremlin was out there !!!
Yes Doc ! Because Captain Kirk tried to warn the flight deck that the gremlin was out there !!!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SassyPilotsWife
Ttex.. WHAT ?
Go to the tech logs ? No way.. we're too cool to hang out with " those" guys. And besides, you appear much smarter. Especially in this thread
Carry on my friend
Go to the tech logs ? No way.. we're too cool to hang out with " those" guys. And besides, you appear much smarter. Especially in this thread
Carry on my friend
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You mean easy for them to be intelligent when speaking from the ground. Lets see how they do 38k in the air, in the middle of the night, with 300 lives in their hands.
Easy for them to educate and shed light on a situation from 1,000 ft above sea level, inside 4 walls on the ground, behind a desk and the only warning sounds they are dealing with is coming from the wife telling them to get off the damn computer and help with the kids or set the table cause it's almost dinner time.
Easy for them to educate and shed light on a situation from 1,000 ft above sea level, inside 4 walls on the ground, behind a desk and the only warning sounds they are dealing with is coming from the wife telling them to get off the damn computer and help with the kids or set the table cause it's almost dinner time.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: us
Age: 64
Posts: 206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me get this straight:
this is a plane which when confronted with a speed discrepancy
- turns off the autopilot even when there is no need to do so
- turns off stall protections even though there is no need to do so
- sounds the stall alert when you point the nose down and makes it stop when you pull up
- bombards pilots with confusing messages except the one that matters
- allows both pilots to steer it in opposite directions
This is one craaaaaazy plane!
this is a plane which when confronted with a speed discrepancy
- turns off the autopilot even when there is no need to do so
- turns off stall protections even though there is no need to do so
- sounds the stall alert when you point the nose down and makes it stop when you pull up
- bombards pilots with confusing messages except the one that matters
- allows both pilots to steer it in opposite directions
This is one craaaaaazy plane!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a non-flyin' personage who's fascinated by transport flying, I hafta say....I've read .every. .damned. .post. in the Tech Logs, albeit sometimes with eyes crossed, and I'm sure I've learned much more from the pilots (the articulate ones such as Ttex) about the art and science of flying than I have from those engineers, wannabe engineers, self-styled engineers, and speculative armchair fliers who live in grassy valleys.
No matter what the education and background of anyone posting, the ones I pay attention to are the ones who are able to look at divergent POVs without becoming polarized, who have, above all, common sense, and who appreciate the staggering complexity of the causes of an accident like this one.
No matter what the education and background of anyone posting, the ones I pay attention to are the ones who are able to look at divergent POVs without becoming polarized, who have, above all, common sense, and who appreciate the staggering complexity of the causes of an accident like this one.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aging gracefully
Organfreak,
First, your name reminds me of those body eating, face munching freaks in the US right now but I'm sure you concentrate more on blood supply vs skin and tissue since you're an organ freak LOL. j/k
If you have indeed read every. single. post. on the tech forums, you must be what, 99 years old now ?
I agree with you, trust the ones who make decisions and calculated movements based on " cloud smarts" and offer their expertise from flying experience rather than the IKEA table others sit at as they type.
First, your name reminds me of those body eating, face munching freaks in the US right now but I'm sure you concentrate more on blood supply vs skin and tissue since you're an organ freak LOL. j/k
If you have indeed read every. single. post. on the tech forums, you must be what, 99 years old now ?
I agree with you, trust the ones who make decisions and calculated movements based on " cloud smarts" and offer their expertise from flying experience rather than the IKEA table others sit at as they type.
Last edited by SassyPilotsWife; 7th Jul 2012 at 18:42.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: MEM
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Readers
A plane is a plane is a plane is a plane. They all follow basic aerodynamic principals. A very simple technique that was taught from the early days of aviation for unusual attitude recovery is (1) Center the needle, (2) center the ball, (3) check the airspeed. BASIC AIRMANSHIP would have probably saved the day (night). I don't know if the A330 has the basic turn slip indicator or not, or if the new gen pilots are taught to use it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Proud member of the " banned society"
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Acer, your 5 post only status makes me want to reply 1st.
Yes, if you have control of the control surfaces and engine power, but what if 'The Computer" is in charge and won't let you ?
Of course, I'm not a pilot, you are and I respect your reply.. so my statement is really a question to you...
Of course, I'm not a pilot, you are and I respect your reply.. so my statement is really a question to you...
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Phoenix, AZ USA
Age: 66
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
dlcm...
To place blame anywhere but on the pilots is fundamentally wrong. This is not an "AB" issue it's a question of basic airmanship. The PF took a perfectly functional airframe with a known manageable issue and fubar'd it so badly it was probably unrecoverable by the time the captain returned.
All the dribble about course change, rest etc is just that. The failure to fly "pitch & power" when confronted with unreliable airspeed is inexcusable for any licensed pilot...let alone one with an ATPL.
To place blame anywhere but on the pilots is fundamentally wrong. This is not an "AB" issue it's a question of basic airmanship. The PF took a perfectly functional airframe with a known manageable issue and fubar'd it so badly it was probably unrecoverable by the time the captain returned.
All the dribble about course change, rest etc is just that. The failure to fly "pitch & power" when confronted with unreliable airspeed is inexcusable for any licensed pilot...let alone one with an ATPL.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well ok465
What do you think of this (WIKI)
Even AB test pilots didn't have a clear picture!!!!!!!!!!!!
What do you think of this (WIKI)
The type's first fatal accident occurred on 30 June 1994 near Toulouse on a test flight when an Airbus-owned A330-300 crashed while simulating an engine failure on climbout, killing all seven on board.[39] Airbus subsequently advised A330 operators to disconnect the autopilot and limit pitch attitude in the event of an engine failure at low speed.