AF 447 report out
Dozy, you might want to step back and take a deep breath. And then try reading what others wrote. You continue to argue on tangents; tangents that seem relevant but upon close inspection are nothing more than misdirections.
Perhaps there are those who would prefer both threads to become trivialised, so that no external readers of influence take it too seriously, or is that too cynical ?...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX USA
Age: 62
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Each side-stick is clearly visible from the opposite seat, therefore the excuse that the PNF was in the dark about what the PF was doing is false. They saw what the stick input was and agreed with the action taken, apparently. Not that it would have made much difference getting the nose down, even assuming the stick was held against the forward stops (which it wasn't). At an approx. -63 degree FPA ... combined with a markedly positive deck angle of 10 degrees NU or more, the THS was fully stalled (dropping at twice the rate of forward airspeed yields the -63 degree value for FPA [inverse tangent (2/1)] ).
Since the plane wasn't flying anymore, the situation was one of a mass being acted upon by three forces, gravity, drag, and thrust. The airplane naturally wants to weathervane into the oncoming wind (lowered drag), and the engine thrust was acting to prevent it. By reading these threads, it appears to me that firewall thrust is a technique used at lower altitudes. While all the attention is centered around sticks, force feedback, and design philosophy, the elephant is the room appears to go unnoticed.
Since the plane wasn't flying anymore, the situation was one of a mass being acted upon by three forces, gravity, drag, and thrust. The airplane naturally wants to weathervane into the oncoming wind (lowered drag), and the engine thrust was acting to prevent it. By reading these threads, it appears to me that firewall thrust is a technique used at lower altitudes. While all the attention is centered around sticks, force feedback, and design philosophy, the elephant is the room appears to go unnoticed.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Sweden
Age: 87
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CVR filtering
Can anybody on this thread explain why BEA don't give a full record of what was on the CVR. As an example compare with the corresponding detailed record in the NTSB report on the Buffalo accident. Is BEA afraid of something?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Diversification
Methink the general answer will be:
The NTSB give a detailed record .. because all the CVR stances were of importance (related) to the event (or they believe it)
In it's final report the BEA warn that all stances in the CVR not related to the accident (or what they believe not related) were not in the transcript
It's not you or me to decide what will be published ..
And like it or not is another debate .... and maybe this will be debated in the trial (the only place for if any)
Diversification
As an example compare with the corresponding detailed record in the NTSB report on the Buffalo accident
The NTSB give a detailed record .. because all the CVR stances were of importance (related) to the event (or they believe it)
In it's final report the BEA warn that all stances in the CVR not related to the accident (or what they believe not related) were not in the transcript
It's not you or me to decide what will be published ..
And like it or not is another debate .... and maybe this will be debated in the trial (the only place for if any)
Last edited by jcjeant; 4th Aug 2012 at 22:36.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do... md80fan
"While all the attention is centered around sticks, force feedback, and design philosophy, the elephant is the room appears to go unnoticed."
But nothing went wrong with the engines....
Their use was abusive, and except for being drug above their power ceiling, they did their level best to keep 447 Stalled....
You have a strong point...what are your thoughts?
"While all the attention is centered around sticks, force feedback, and design philosophy, the elephant is the room appears to go unnoticed."
But nothing went wrong with the engines....
Their use was abusive, and except for being drug above their power ceiling, they did their level best to keep 447 Stalled....
You have a strong point...what are your thoughts?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diversification...
Diversification
CVR filtering
Can anybody on this thread explain why BEA don't give a full record of what was on the CVR. As an example compare with the corresponding detailed record in the NTSB report on the Buffalo accident. Is BEA afraid of something?
In a word, of course. Well two words. They have witheld important data relevant to the crash, you can be sure. At the very least, inflection, tone, and expletives are missing. My guess is that they have released a bare minimum to prevent several things from happening.
The possibility, (surety) that another avalanche of comment will be generated.
The possibility that their clients will be angered by what they read....
Their handling of the investigation will meet with renewed anger... OR, new anger...
There is an off chance that something of great import is being forestalled by the redacted content....
They will be found to have "mishandled" and/or misrepresented some things...
ONE example, the Vs traces? Is that it CONFiture? (mode?)
Diversification
CVR filtering
Can anybody on this thread explain why BEA don't give a full record of what was on the CVR. As an example compare with the corresponding detailed record in the NTSB report on the Buffalo accident. Is BEA afraid of something?
In a word, of course. Well two words. They have witheld important data relevant to the crash, you can be sure. At the very least, inflection, tone, and expletives are missing. My guess is that they have released a bare minimum to prevent several things from happening.
The possibility, (surety) that another avalanche of comment will be generated.
The possibility that their clients will be angered by what they read....
Their handling of the investigation will meet with renewed anger... OR, new anger...
There is an off chance that something of great import is being forestalled by the redacted content....
They will be found to have "mishandled" and/or misrepresented some things...
ONE example, the Vs traces? Is that it CONFiture? (mode?)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Safetypee
As I have not the ICAO annex 13 directly under my eyes .. can you give the ICAO article where it's write that disclosure of CVR transcript is forbidden
BEA put what they want in the transcript .. they are free ...
Safetypee
Can anybody on this thread explain why BEA don't give a full record …
Read ICAO Annex 13, 5.12 ‘Non-disclosure of records.’
Read ICAO Annex 13, 5.12 ‘Non-disclosure of records.’
BEA put what they want in the transcript .. they are free ...
Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Aug 2012 at 02:24.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jcjeant
In the US, all government agencies are subject to formal inspection by an independent Grand Jury, who have power of subpoena, and access to all records.
Keeps everybody honest. Not in France?
In the US, all government agencies are subject to formal inspection by an independent Grand Jury, who have power of subpoena, and access to all records.
Keeps everybody honest. Not in France?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jcjeant
In the US, all government agencies
In the US, all government agencies
Le Quotidien - «Oh merde...»
Google ...
Google*Traduction
The court decided yesterday to make public the cockpit recording on board, holding that the room was necessary for the discovery of truth. But the audio quality of the document is poor. However, in the room could hear a pin drop.
Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Aug 2012 at 03:17.
ICAO Annex 13, 5.12 ‘Non-disclosure of records.’
jcjeant via Google !
http://www.mexico.icao.int/icaoaspa2...0ed%5B1%5D.pdf
5.12 The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:
5.12.1 These records shall be included in the final report or its appendices only when pertinent to the analysis of the accident or incident. Parts of the records not relevant to the analysis shall not be disclosed.
Also see attachment E for the legal advice.
Note the emphasis on the State.
The rest of the world does not have to follow the US, open disclosure, litigious approach often used by NTSB.
http://www.mexico.icao.int/icaoaspa2...0ed%5B1%5D.pdf
5.12 The State conducting the investigation of an accident or incident shall not make the following records available for purposes other than accident or incident investigation, unless the appropriate authority for the administration of justice in that State determines that their disclosure outweighs the adverse domestic and international impact such action may have on that or any future investigations:
5.12.1 These records shall be included in the final report or its appendices only when pertinent to the analysis of the accident or incident. Parts of the records not relevant to the analysis shall not be disclosed.
Also see attachment E for the legal advice.
Note the emphasis on the State.
The rest of the world does not have to follow the US, open disclosure, litigious approach often used by NTSB.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by PJ2
As always, the criticisms come from those who don't fly or who've never flown the type so they regurgitate the prejudices they've read from others who similarly either don't fly at all or don't fly the Airbus. Sadly, there is nothing that can be said that will alter perceptions or understanding in such an atmosphere.
Why do you feel it necessary to even attempt to alter the perceptions and understanding of a group of people who you believe don't fly, or don't fly Airbii?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyman
[ 447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility]
Prove it.
Beyond doubt.
That's all I ask.
Originally Posted by Lyman
[ 447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility]
Prove it.
Beyond doubt.
That's all I ask.
AF447 did not get into trouble all at once. It was prolonged incorrect control inputs that did her in. Monitoring the output (aircraft attitude) is not equivalent to monitoring the input.
Aterpster's buddy has made a reasonable expert evaluation.
When a Captain is called back to the cockpit he had better be in troubleshooting mode. Seeing the yoke full aft or nearly so would be cause to ask a loud WTF are you doing!!! On AF447 what he saw was two scared C/Ps and an aircraft that was not following control inputs. Don't tell me that the situations are equivalent.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clandestino
There is absolutely nothing religious about pilots' training. Nothing is dogmatic, everything is verifiable. Warning that flight directors will lead astray if in wrong mode is included in every training, as is inculcating the habit to constantly check FMA for correct mode and selected values. It is entertaining to read the outsiders' misconception on the way airline pilots do their job but it gets a bit annoying when such notions are stubbornly touted to be true.
If the habit to fly pitch and power were as "trained" in Airbus training as is constantly checking FMA for correct mode and values ; and as is a slavish focus on satisfying the ECAM master, maybe we would have no accident to discuss.
Is it your position that every system is acceptable provided that the operator is "trained"?
Next, you can't have it both ways. Which instruments are primary? Flight directors and FMA's, or attitude and power? The "it could never happen to me" crowd was quick to inform us that the ill fated AF447 crew needed only to fly pitch and power, and now you inform that FMA is important. [/sarcastic bad attitude]
If none of this makes sense, see the next paragraph
It gets a bit annoying to have it implied that I the Bus pilot am an outsider to an airline pilots job, but this is a (basically) anonymous forum so I wont try to convince you otherwise. Your previous series of counterpoints show me that we have a language/cultural barrier and I only speak US Govenment school English. You failed to read it as I wrote it and that's my fault. Carry on.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machinbird, when I first learned to roll, I input aileron until I reached the roll angle I wanted, then I had to reverse the aileron, to stop the roll. That established the angle, and I turned.
When Bonin first pulled up, to correct the descent left over from autoflight, he would have had to do the same? Push, to stop the Nose from rising further?
Because what I see in your well developed essays on PIO, I see also in Pitch, Bonin seemed never to have sussed the Pitch he had commanded from the very first. His Pitch, though averaging UP, also fluctuated, and he seemed as behind the aircraft in Roll. He did not arrest his original input, and the aircraft ended up seeking what it determined was his command, an average of UP.
His lack of response to Horizon is unexplained.
Relative to Dozy and his Stick fascination, I submit that seeing the stick is not necessary, and in fact, not helpful, to the other pilot. Where the stick is positioned likely has no relation to the command, each command must be bumped, rebumped, and bumped again, to get the command first to show, then to arrest, then to check the proper instrument to determine where the aircraft ended up.
Likewise your comment on the history of each bump, it is impossible to know, and even if known, cannot immediately be linked to aircraft response. Now holding the stick in a position might offer some info, but unlessJ there is a focus established by the observing pilot, he will not know the relationship of the stick to the attitude.
The stick does not convey the correct information, unless it is followed, and Studied,
As to the timing of each bump, it appears it is a process of guesswork, bump and suss, bump and suss....
It seems that the Bus demands complete focus of the pilot to not only make inputs, but to analyze and reanalyze their effects, on a continuous basis, who has time to peep the panel?
Wherever the yoke remains, that is what it is doing, it is not forward, back, neutral, forward, whilst the pilot susses out what it is accomplishing?
When Bonin first pulled up, to correct the descent left over from autoflight, he would have had to do the same? Push, to stop the Nose from rising further?
Because what I see in your well developed essays on PIO, I see also in Pitch, Bonin seemed never to have sussed the Pitch he had commanded from the very first. His Pitch, though averaging UP, also fluctuated, and he seemed as behind the aircraft in Roll. He did not arrest his original input, and the aircraft ended up seeking what it determined was his command, an average of UP.
His lack of response to Horizon is unexplained.
Relative to Dozy and his Stick fascination, I submit that seeing the stick is not necessary, and in fact, not helpful, to the other pilot. Where the stick is positioned likely has no relation to the command, each command must be bumped, rebumped, and bumped again, to get the command first to show, then to arrest, then to check the proper instrument to determine where the aircraft ended up.
Likewise your comment on the history of each bump, it is impossible to know, and even if known, cannot immediately be linked to aircraft response. Now holding the stick in a position might offer some info, but unlessJ there is a focus established by the observing pilot, he will not know the relationship of the stick to the attitude.
The stick does not convey the correct information, unless it is followed, and Studied,
As to the timing of each bump, it appears it is a process of guesswork, bump and suss, bump and suss....
It seems that the Bus demands complete focus of the pilot to not only make inputs, but to analyze and reanalyze their effects, on a continuous basis, who has time to peep the panel?
Wherever the yoke remains, that is what it is doing, it is not forward, back, neutral, forward, whilst the pilot susses out what it is accomplishing?
Last edited by Lyman; 5th Aug 2012 at 14:47.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Toulouse
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TTex600,
It is not 'Airbus' Training but 'Air France' training. Please do not confuse the 2. It is based on Airbus recommendations but done in AF premises with AF instructors based on AF SOPs.
It is not 'Airbus' Training but 'Air France' training. Please do not confuse the 2. It is based on Airbus recommendations but done in AF premises with AF instructors based on AF SOPs.
ACARS
Originally Posted by Lyman
447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility
DozyWannabe:
Prove it.
Beyond doubt.
That's all I ask.
447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility
DozyWannabe:
Prove it.
Beyond doubt.
That's all I ask.
BEA FR 2.1.2.3 Control of the flight path
It would also seem unlikely that the PNF could have determined the PF’s flight path stabilisation targets. It is worth noting that the inputs applied to a sidestick by one pilot cannot be observed easily by the other one and that the conditions of a night flight in IMC make it more difficult to monitor aeroplane attitudes (pitch attitude in particular).
It would also seem unlikely that the PNF could have determined the PF’s flight path stabilisation targets. It is worth noting that the inputs applied to a sidestick by one pilot cannot be observed easily by the other one and that the conditions of a night flight in IMC make it more difficult to monitor aeroplane attitudes (pitch attitude in particular).
Edit:
syseng68k
I must admit to a little disappointment at the level of discussion re AF447 and the same in the tech log thread, where one would expect at least some technical discussion about the report's recommendations. A few months ago, there were serious discussions about all kinds of issues, but now that the final report has been issued, no one seems to want to talk about it in any serious way at all.
Perhaps there are those who would prefer both threads to become trivialised, so that no external readers of influence take it too seriously, or is that too cynical ?...
I must admit to a little disappointment at the level of discussion re AF447 and the same in the tech log thread, where one would expect at least some technical discussion about the report's recommendations. A few months ago, there were serious discussions about all kinds of issues, but now that the final report has been issued, no one seems to want to talk about it in any serious way at all.
Perhaps there are those who would prefer both threads to become trivialised, so that no external readers of influence take it too seriously, or is that too cynical ?...
Last edited by RetiredF4; 5th Aug 2012 at 18:48.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Netherlands
Age: 67
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reading ACARS
No, Roulis,
Pilots don't read the reports that are sent by the ACMS (Aircraft Condition Moniyoring System), via the ACARS (Aircraft Communication Adressing and Reporting System) back to home base (note: equipment may have slightly differerent names/acronyms with different manufacturers).
That sort of technical reporting is done behind the back of the pilots, so to speak. In theory it is possible to call up those reports, or even print them, but that is rather time consuming, something to do as a passtime during boring cruise hours.
For a pilot, anything that is worth taking action on, is delivered on ECAM. For the rest, a dose of common sense is needed to fly any aircraft - yes, that means that, flying an airliner, setting the nose (or letting the nose go) to 15 degrees pitch-up at FL350 is a folly.
Pilots don't read the reports that are sent by the ACMS (Aircraft Condition Moniyoring System), via the ACARS (Aircraft Communication Adressing and Reporting System) back to home base (note: equipment may have slightly differerent names/acronyms with different manufacturers).
That sort of technical reporting is done behind the back of the pilots, so to speak. In theory it is possible to call up those reports, or even print them, but that is rather time consuming, something to do as a passtime during boring cruise hours.
For a pilot, anything that is worth taking action on, is delivered on ECAM. For the rest, a dose of common sense is needed to fly any aircraft - yes, that means that, flying an airliner, setting the nose (or letting the nose go) to 15 degrees pitch-up at FL350 is a folly.
Last edited by EMIT; 5th Aug 2012 at 18:57.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it sad that self righteous pilots would condem fellow pilots. I find it sad that a small group of experts dominate a conversation and apparently live in front of a keyboard.
Why do you feel it necessary to even attempt to alter the perceptions and understanding of a group of people who you believe don't fly, or don't fly Airbii?
Why do you feel it necessary to even attempt to alter the perceptions and understanding of a group of people who you believe don't fly, or don't fly Airbii?
By misinformation and flannel, doth the truth become obscured :-). I must admit to a little disappointment at the level of discussion re AF447 and the same in the tech log thread, where one would expect at least some technical discussion about the report's recommendations. A few months ago, there were serious discussions about all kinds of issues, but now that the final report has been issued, no one seems to want to talk about it in any serious way at all.
Perhaps there are those who would prefer both threads to become trivialised, so that no external readers of influence take it too seriously, or is that too cynical ?...
Perhaps there are those who would prefer both threads to become trivialised, so that no external readers of influence take it too seriously, or is that too cynical ?...
Last edited by Turbine D; 5th Aug 2012 at 19:11. Reason: Wording correction