American Airlines Flight 742 "flight control system" problems
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why did the two FO pilots in AF447 fail to control their Airbus? Maybe the Airbus can be flown just like a Boeing but the pilots are not trained to use their manual flying skills like we were. That is the problem. Automation dependency.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always found that people who think there is a simple explanation to anything haven't actually thought much about anything.
No offense bubbers44, but you strike me as someone who, despite having an opinion on most things, haven't actually thought much about anything. Reality is always complex and needs to be treated as such.
No offense bubbers44, but you strike me as someone who, despite having an opinion on most things, haven't actually thought much about anything. Reality is always complex and needs to be treated as such.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is neither the question nor the issue. If you think it is you have understood little.
AF447 has been debated exhaustible but you seem to revisit issues that everyone have resolved a long time ago. Such as 1+1=2.
AF447 has been debated exhaustible but you seem to revisit issues that everyone have resolved a long time ago. Such as 1+1=2.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Handfly is what I tried to type. The magenta line pilots in my opinion should still be able to do their job if all else fails. We learned from basics so if automation failed we did not care, we just hand flew. AF447 just shows how things are changing.
When AF was in their steep descent angle after their full stall they needed to reference their attitude to the steep descent path to recover but they didn't know how.
Automation has decayed basic piloting skills the last decade and it looks like this is the future unfortunately.
Just out of curiosity: can we get back to AA flight 742, or is that one mostly resolved?
@Dozy 13th Mar 2013 12:32
Are they asking to level the wings, or are they saying not to exceed a certain bank angle? I suspect the intent is to avoid a spiral
dive.
dive.
To unstall, as a comment on your remark there, the first step is usually to adjust pitch and follow with wings level. Granted, this may depend on and the maneuver you are involved in at the moment, but as a pretty basic rule, you adjust pitch, which should adjust / reduce AoA, and (either at the same time or slightly after), work for wings level to maximize lift production and thus continue/complete your recovery of controlled flight.
@ PBY:
Another great idea in the airbus QRH is how to recover from the stall. They are asking to level the wings even before you are out of stall. It is a great entry into the spin.
Can you explain what you mean there?
I used to demonstrate slow flight to flight students. Part of the demo was full dirty slow flying at high AoA, and then showing them AoA increase and stall onset brought on by turning the aircraft (increasing AoA). Would it not follow that rolling out of any turn/bank would normally decrease AoA and help prevent/recover from stall?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Mar 2013 at 23:03.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBY
I think you need to go back to school 1. to read properly and 2. to flight school to understand stall recovery properly.
The QRH categorically states as the first action
NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL............APPLY
This will reduce angle of attack
Note: In case of lack of pitch down authority, reducing thrust may be necessary
BANK.........................................WINGS LEVEL
I think you need to go back to school 1. to read properly and 2. to flight school to understand stall recovery properly.
The QRH categorically states as the first action
NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL............APPLY
This will reduce angle of attack
Note: In case of lack of pitch down authority, reducing thrust may be necessary
BANK.........................................WINGS LEVEL
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lone wolf 50, at least we have found one pilot who understands how airplanes fly. Yes, if you are stalled lower the nose, level the wings and wait for the proper airspeed to pull up without stalling. Hopefully the ground doesn't hit you before you attain proper speed. AF447 couldn't do it with two fully qualified FO's but I bet you could. Good for you.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
quote from Dosy:
Are you sure? BUSS is an optional fit, so it's not going to apply to the whole fleet, plus it won't address the issue above FL250. Pitch and power settings won't have disappeared from the FCOM - IMO they should be a memory item anyway.
I am not talking about pitch and power above 250. Of course there is pitch and power settings in Airbus manual. But they have removed potch and power setting for 3 degree glide slope which used to be there until a year ago, when they removed it. Would you be so kind and go to the manual and let us know, if you can find it?
They removed it because now they have BUSS. But if AOA gets stuck, BUSS is not going to work.
quote from Dosy:
Are they asking to level the wings, or are they saying not to exceed a certain bank angle? I suspect the intent is to avoid a spiral dive.
We are talking about stall here, not a spiral dive. But of course, after you unstall the wing, you should level out. The question still remains, should you level the wings BEFORE you unstall the wing? I don't ink so.
quote from Iceman:
PBY
I think you need to go back to school 1. to read properly and 2. to flight school to understand stall recovery properly.
The QRH categorically states as the first action
NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL............APPLY
This will reduce angle of attack (my highlighting)
Note: In case of lack of pitch down authority, reducing thrust may be necessary
BANK.........................................WINGS LEVEL
Iceman, read further: after bank...... wings level what does it say?
When out of stall.... increase thrust smoothly
Do you see, you did not continue reading. They tell you first to level the wings and than when out of stall, do something else. Just reducing the angle of attack does not mean you reduced it below the stalling angle.
quote from lonewolf:
How so? If you approach or enter a stall while in an Angle of bank, you will tend to decrease AoA by returning to wings level, though for my money you will usually get better response by first lowering pitch to reduce AoA (assuming non-inverted flight).
I used to teach aerobatics. If you are close to the stall or you are in the stall and you at that moment try to abruptly level the wings, you will increase the angle of attack of the wing with the down aileron. The down deflected aileron will change the relative camber of the wing (sorry forgot the exact english expression here) into a hiher angle of attack. It used to be a fun way to enter a spin or increase the spin rate. I used to do it to show students that you don' have to enter a spin just by kicking a rudder, because they used to tell me they would never kick the rudder. I just oppose the Airbus QRH procedure to level the wings before you are out of stall. You need first unstall the wing before the wing will listen again to your commands with the aileron. Is it so difficult for pilots to understand basic flying concepts these days? By the way the british chief pilot of airbus says exactly the same on his video. First unstall the wing, than level it.
By the way can anybody please explain to me how to use the quote feature in pprune? This is my longest reply I have done in a long time. I do not enjoy sitting by computers. I do too much handflying of airbus every day, to help guys overcome their fear of manual flying. I must say, they usually improve quite fast, when they are exposed to it. Unfortunately some guys get exposed to manual flying the first time, when sh1t hits the fan.
If I don't respond more to this, don't take it personally. As I said, I am not a computer guy. I would rather discuss all this by the beer.
Are you sure? BUSS is an optional fit, so it's not going to apply to the whole fleet, plus it won't address the issue above FL250. Pitch and power settings won't have disappeared from the FCOM - IMO they should be a memory item anyway.
I am not talking about pitch and power above 250. Of course there is pitch and power settings in Airbus manual. But they have removed potch and power setting for 3 degree glide slope which used to be there until a year ago, when they removed it. Would you be so kind and go to the manual and let us know, if you can find it?
They removed it because now they have BUSS. But if AOA gets stuck, BUSS is not going to work.
quote from Dosy:
Are they asking to level the wings, or are they saying not to exceed a certain bank angle? I suspect the intent is to avoid a spiral dive.
We are talking about stall here, not a spiral dive. But of course, after you unstall the wing, you should level out. The question still remains, should you level the wings BEFORE you unstall the wing? I don't ink so.
quote from Iceman:
PBY
I think you need to go back to school 1. to read properly and 2. to flight school to understand stall recovery properly.
The QRH categorically states as the first action
NOSE DOWN PITCH CONTROL............APPLY
This will reduce angle of attack (my highlighting)
Note: In case of lack of pitch down authority, reducing thrust may be necessary
BANK.........................................WINGS LEVEL
Iceman, read further: after bank...... wings level what does it say?
When out of stall.... increase thrust smoothly
Do you see, you did not continue reading. They tell you first to level the wings and than when out of stall, do something else. Just reducing the angle of attack does not mean you reduced it below the stalling angle.
quote from lonewolf:
How so? If you approach or enter a stall while in an Angle of bank, you will tend to decrease AoA by returning to wings level, though for my money you will usually get better response by first lowering pitch to reduce AoA (assuming non-inverted flight).
I used to teach aerobatics. If you are close to the stall or you are in the stall and you at that moment try to abruptly level the wings, you will increase the angle of attack of the wing with the down aileron. The down deflected aileron will change the relative camber of the wing (sorry forgot the exact english expression here) into a hiher angle of attack. It used to be a fun way to enter a spin or increase the spin rate. I used to do it to show students that you don' have to enter a spin just by kicking a rudder, because they used to tell me they would never kick the rudder. I just oppose the Airbus QRH procedure to level the wings before you are out of stall. You need first unstall the wing before the wing will listen again to your commands with the aileron. Is it so difficult for pilots to understand basic flying concepts these days? By the way the british chief pilot of airbus says exactly the same on his video. First unstall the wing, than level it.
By the way can anybody please explain to me how to use the quote feature in pprune? This is my longest reply I have done in a long time. I do not enjoy sitting by computers. I do too much handflying of airbus every day, to help guys overcome their fear of manual flying. I must say, they usually improve quite fast, when they are exposed to it. Unfortunately some guys get exposed to manual flying the first time, when sh1t hits the fan.
If I don't respond more to this, don't take it personally. As I said, I am not a computer guy. I would rather discuss all this by the beer.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PBY
You are confusing many things here. The removal of the approach attitude info is only for A/C that have the BUSS fitted and it is part of the ADR / unreliable airspeed checklist, you are now applying a "double" failure of the AOA probes as well!
If one does not know the rough attitude, power setting required for a 3 degree slope then perhaps one should not be in the cockpit. Have you tried the BUSS yet in the simulator, works a treat.
What are you going to do if you stall in the turn at altitude? The second preamble to the stall recovery is to cover for the lack of pitch control and slamming to Toga which could pitch the A/C up into the stall again or being in an high nose attitude situation in the first place. Have you actually tried it in the simulator because it works!
My highlighting of your quote above shows the problem, you are wanting or describing to "ABRUPTLY level the wings" BEFORE you have applied pitch to REDUCE the AOA! Incorrect technique.
Perhaps you should also realise that Airbus, Boeing and the other manufacturers agreed this "new" stall recovery procedure. The fact is, it is not new and was taught from day one where I was trained. The thrust coming later is because the minimum height loss was becoming a zero height loss for some trainers and checkers. Which is incorrect and required immediate full power application, which in some instances in large jet A/C can exacerbate the situation or even prevent recovery.
You are confusing many things here. The removal of the approach attitude info is only for A/C that have the BUSS fitted and it is part of the ADR / unreliable airspeed checklist, you are now applying a "double" failure of the AOA probes as well!
If one does not know the rough attitude, power setting required for a 3 degree slope then perhaps one should not be in the cockpit. Have you tried the BUSS yet in the simulator, works a treat.
What are you going to do if you stall in the turn at altitude? The second preamble to the stall recovery is to cover for the lack of pitch control and slamming to Toga which could pitch the A/C up into the stall again or being in an high nose attitude situation in the first place. Have you actually tried it in the simulator because it works!
I used to teach aerobatics. If you are close to the stall or you are in the stall and you at that moment try to abruptly level the wings, you will increase the angle of attack of the wing with the down aileron.
Perhaps you should also realise that Airbus, Boeing and the other manufacturers agreed this "new" stall recovery procedure. The fact is, it is not new and was taught from day one where I was trained. The thrust coming later is because the minimum height loss was becoming a zero height loss for some trainers and checkers. Which is incorrect and required immediate full power application, which in some instances in large jet A/C can exacerbate the situation or even prevent recovery.
By the way can anybody please explain to me how to use the quote feature in PPRuNe?
OR if you want to quote an entire message, along with attribution to the author of the post, press the REPLY button in the lower right hand corner of the post you want to quote. This will take you to the REPLY box where you may then edit or remove parts of the quoted text you don't wish to appear in the quote box of your reply post.
Clear as mud now?
Detailed instructions for using v bulletin (the forum software) features are easy to find with an internet search if you feel so inclined. And not really a "computer guy" either. I just try to learn what I need to in order to use the tool effectively. Similar to knowing an airplane and all of it's various tools.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Around the corner
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman, I agree with you, that if somebody does not know the pitch and power in the 3 degree glide, one should not be in a cockpit. So now, when you finally agree with me that it is of a paramount importance to know that, the info should be in the cockpit, why Airbus does not provide this vital info in the QRH?
You are talking about double failure. Imagine a single cause. Pitot, static and Aoa iced up or contaminated with a sand during a sandstorm and AOA stuck.
Now you have no BUSS and you fly pitch and power. You have know training, no info on pitch and power from official source (airbus manual). Lawyers will love it, as much as they are sueing the a$$ of airbus training department due to A447 accident.
Thank you also on agreeing with me, that we should first get out of the stall by reducing the angle of attack and than level the wings. The airbus problem in The QRH is a problem of sequence. They do say level the wings before the column when out of stall.
So now when we agree with each other, good night!
You are talking about double failure. Imagine a single cause. Pitot, static and Aoa iced up or contaminated with a sand during a sandstorm and AOA stuck.
Now you have no BUSS and you fly pitch and power. You have know training, no info on pitch and power from official source (airbus manual). Lawyers will love it, as much as they are sueing the a$$ of airbus training department due to A447 accident.
Thank you also on agreeing with me, that we should first get out of the stall by reducing the angle of attack and than level the wings. The airbus problem in The QRH is a problem of sequence. They do say level the wings before the column when out of stall.
So now when we agree with each other, good night!
PBY:
It's a pity you and I aren't talking about the same thing here.
has little to do with the topic of how to handle an A330, but thanks for explaining to me what you meant.
I do appreciate the finer points you make about aircraft flying at the edges of performance, so thanks for that insight.
It's a pity you and I aren't talking about the same thing here.
If you are close to the stall or you are in the stall and you at that moment try to abruptly level the wings,
I do appreciate the finer points you make about aircraft flying at the edges of performance, so thanks for that insight.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: England
Age: 65
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers,
it's not an Airbus or Boeing issue - It's a pilot issue.
Just like you, the AF447 pilots probably trusted the plane which would have flown out of the situation IF the correct control inputs had been applied.
Two qualified pilots plus an experienced captain for some of it, Turkish at AMS, three qualified pilots and again a plane which would have flown out of the situation IF the correct control inputs had been applied.
It's your employers who are making the decision to use the automatics at every opportunity, however, it's the pilot's job to stay one step ahead and take over as appropriate.
This isn't aircraft or manufacturer specific and never has been.
it's not an Airbus or Boeing issue - It's a pilot issue.
Just like you, the AF447 pilots probably trusted the plane which would have flown out of the situation IF the correct control inputs had been applied.
Two qualified pilots plus an experienced captain for some of it, Turkish at AMS, three qualified pilots and again a plane which would have flown out of the situation IF the correct control inputs had been applied.
It's your employers who are making the decision to use the automatics at every opportunity, however, it's the pilot's job to stay one step ahead and take over as appropriate.
This isn't aircraft or manufacturer specific and never has been.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: flying by night
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then why did the two FO pilots in AF447 fail to control their Airbus? Maybe the Airbus can be flown just like a Boeing but the pilots are not trained to use their manual flying skills like we were. That is the problem. Automation dependency.
Last edited by deptrai; 14th Mar 2013 at 19:35.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: US
Posts: 2,205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess it is 99% of the good pilots I know that would have no problem with UAS. You must be talking about other pilots. What airline do they fly for? What is so hard about holding 2 degrees above the horizon that your pilots can't figure out?
By the way I took a pay cut not to have to fly the Airbus because I didn't trust it like I did the Boeing aircraft.
I think I know who you are talking about. Our check airmen in the sims were jealous because they couldn't be real airline pilots, just instructors so tried to put us down to boost their egos. We didn't get to go into a sim that couldn't crash and spend your life with no chance of ever getting violated or explaining why you did anything. We did.
Last edited by misd-agin; 14th Mar 2013 at 15:36.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still didn't trust the A300 and the 767 spent too much time doing red eyes so took the easy TGU day trips and slept in my own bed most nights. I only know one pilot that couldn't fly without airspeed. I stick with the 99%. The Sim instructor insisted it was 50%. They weren't always our friends and loved to try to make us look bad because they spent their whole life in a sim, we did it every 9 months.
It has been a very long time since we broke a tail off a Boeing but not that long ago our A300 lost it's tail because of a little wake turbulence and copilot rudder action that was conveniently blamed on the incident by Airbus. As has been reported before that Airbus A300 had delamination of the vertical stabilizer coming out of the factory and was patched but Airbus denies that had anything to do with it. My friend in MIA lost control of their A300 with uncontrollable yaw on final and had to go around. They felt they were going to crash. Something with the yaw damper.
My era of pilot friends all knew how to handfly any airplane well. No need for automation at all except to reduce work load during cruise. Most of the time was spent manually flying on climbs and descents and approaches because it was fun. The new Embry Riddle guys aren't taught that way. They have to do it on their own or do it the Airbus way. I got my final commercial pilot sign off at Ambry Riddle but over 90% was at my local airport. I went straight to a crop dusting job in Minnesota so never became automation dependent.
I don't mean to put the magenta line pilots down but what do you do when all the lights go out? We always had a way out. So should the new pilots.
It has been a very long time since we broke a tail off a Boeing but not that long ago our A300 lost it's tail because of a little wake turbulence and copilot rudder action that was conveniently blamed on the incident by Airbus. As has been reported before that Airbus A300 had delamination of the vertical stabilizer coming out of the factory and was patched but Airbus denies that had anything to do with it. My friend in MIA lost control of their A300 with uncontrollable yaw on final and had to go around. They felt they were going to crash. Something with the yaw damper.
My era of pilot friends all knew how to handfly any airplane well. No need for automation at all except to reduce work load during cruise. Most of the time was spent manually flying on climbs and descents and approaches because it was fun. The new Embry Riddle guys aren't taught that way. They have to do it on their own or do it the Airbus way. I got my final commercial pilot sign off at Ambry Riddle but over 90% was at my local airport. I went straight to a crop dusting job in Minnesota so never became automation dependent.
I don't mean to put the magenta line pilots down but what do you do when all the lights go out? We always had a way out. So should the new pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: B.F.E.
Posts: 228
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lest we forget that any airplane can be stalled into the ground from cruise altitude, remember:
West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...which is applicable to the present discussion due to the nature of the accident, and to the original intent of this thread due to the airplane type. DC-9 variants are some of the most "manual" airplanes out there (about to leave a seat in one for an Airbus, so no prejudice either way here. Will report back after getting used to the new beast).
If the pitch and power setting for a 3 degree final approach is not in the manual (don't have manuals for the airplane yet so couldn't say what's in ours), how about figuring it out the same way you did when you got your instrument rating (assuming that was in the days where GA piston singles did not have PFDs, GPS, and flight directors). Next time you are on final out there somewhere, take a look and write it down. In fact, let me know; I need some sim gouge!
West Caribbean Airways Flight 708 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
...which is applicable to the present discussion due to the nature of the accident, and to the original intent of this thread due to the airplane type. DC-9 variants are some of the most "manual" airplanes out there (about to leave a seat in one for an Airbus, so no prejudice either way here. Will report back after getting used to the new beast).
If the pitch and power setting for a 3 degree final approach is not in the manual (don't have manuals for the airplane yet so couldn't say what's in ours), how about figuring it out the same way you did when you got your instrument rating (assuming that was in the days where GA piston singles did not have PFDs, GPS, and flight directors). Next time you are on final out there somewhere, take a look and write it down. In fact, let me know; I need some sim gouge!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
regarding the carribean md80 crash...wasn't there some thought that the plane was overloaded? Also improper use of anit ice?
anyway...a crash is a crash...and if you stall a plane, regardless of manufacturer and you cannot recover, not only did you screw up by letting the stall happen, but not being able to recover is really not earning your pay.
fruther
I would like to think of Air France as a first class line...and the carribean thing...not so first class.
the Stall is what makes the plane different than just an air going sort of automobile. how did we get to the point where a stall isn't right up there with concerns of safe flying?
anyway...a crash is a crash...and if you stall a plane, regardless of manufacturer and you cannot recover, not only did you screw up by letting the stall happen, but not being able to recover is really not earning your pay.
fruther
I would like to think of Air France as a first class line...and the carribean thing...not so first class.
the Stall is what makes the plane different than just an air going sort of automobile. how did we get to the point where a stall isn't right up there with concerns of safe flying?