The video is not available at the moment, don't know why.
Flight 447: The air safety investigation

I watched it live in Sydney on the free to air 9 network last night.
It was pretty useless. Nothing new at all. Don't loose any sleep over it.

So did I and I was awake half the night wondering why the PF chose to pull back on the side stick after the AP disconnected and apparently kept the back pressure on the side stick pretty much all the way down to the point of no recovery.

It also brought home to me that in the middle of the pitch black night in the middle of nowhere you are absolutely reliant on your instruments, and why did none of them notice the pitch-up attitude on the AH and do what any student air cadet glider pilot should have done instinctively, i.e. lower the nose?

The fact neither pilot could see the other pilot's sidestick position is also a huge concern. I won't revisit the customary "wouldn't happen on a non FBW brand of aircraft" discussion but it would perhaps have helped had PNF been able to discern the PF stick input.

Maybe PF was too occupied fighting the roll oscillation to notice what he was doing with the pitch? :hmm:

Until you are sitting in the seat under identical conditions, you do not know how well you would have handled the sensory overload. There are load shedding strategies for handling sensory overload, but they need to be trained and developed.

Has training improved that much in the intervening almost 4 years that everyone feels they could handle that scenario should it happen to them?

For those who cant see the You Tube, try installing hola.org which should by pass content restrictions. I saw the 60 Minutes and they crucified the PF but there was little mention of Airbus design issues. Just a brief mention that the other 2 pilots couldnt see PF side stick movements and the stall warning eventually stopped when attitude became unbelievable. No mention of the THS being on or close to its backstop position or lack of AoA instrumentation.

And guess what was causing the roll , the PF, so why not just pull up because the airbus can't stall in normal law so that is why you don't need experienced pilots to fly an airbus. Only this time it slipped into a law that had no stall protection so everybody died. This is the future so get used to it. Hopefully it won't reach the USA.

Yes, seeing a Boeing with the control wheel full back would alert any pilot at high altitude that we can't fly this way is not available on an invisible Airbus side stick. The only real pilot, the captain, came up too late to save it because he didn't see a wheel in the FO's chest because it was hidden. The PF had it full back for several minutes because he wasn't a real hands on pilot. He expected the automation to take care of him and it didn't.

Unlike the Boeing, the FMC on the 330 gives you (solely) GPS derived Altitude and groundspeed, Boeing only gives Altitude (777). In amongst all the goings on, why didn't they look at the GPS derived figures on the FMC? The Alt would have been counting down rapidly and the groundspeed would have shown 80ish knots.

Would have solved the 'are we climbing or descending?' questions the PF was asking........................

Why do the pitots keep freezing up...good grief!! And it's happened many times in the "big bus" fleet...

Supercooled water droplets exceed the capability of the older Pitots and may also exceed the new ones too......:sad:

Yes, that's another kind of CRM technique. Sterile flight deck. Sterile forum...

In the case of AF447 we really don't know, the evidence is hazy, but it may well have been.

Your previous comments re your experiences of UAS are well remembered.:ok:

Surely it is possible to use an independent instrument to indicate pitch?

Wings level a $10 spirit level bolted horizontally to the side of the cockpit would do the job...like a slip and turn indicator?

Would it be a good idea to have a simple graphical display of the position of the stick in plain sight, as a means of cross reference between pilots in an emergency?

ironbutt57,
 

Reading the last few comments, I had the same feeling. Maybe the PF did not realize the stick was all the way back.

Hmm so is the answer more automation ? should the GPS be added to the logic with airspeed disagree ?

Could the RAT be deployed as another possible speed indicator(assuming it has some sort of RPM display)? or would if just turn into a large block of ice, in this case with the freezing rain etc.

No. the PF was recorded on the CVR a few seconds before the end of the flight.
Immediately after this the Captain says
This confirms that the Captain didn't know what Bonin was doing and Bonin didn't realise the aircraft was stalled. Bonin had experience with gliders, so it's not credible he was so ignorant of the mechanics of flight that he thought he could pull up out of a stall. The only explanation is that he did not realise what it meant to be in alternate law and a stall was possible. Amidst all the cacophany of warnings, buffets and probable fatigue Bonin was simply confused. However, one pilot becoming confused should not bring down the aircraft. This brings us to the other major part of the systems failure. The other two professional pilots did not see what Bonin was doing because it was not obvious. As bubbers44 pointed out the deflections on small sidestick were essentially invisible to the other crew members.

Yes and there have been NO Boeings that have stalled in with the yoke fully aft!!!:rolleyes:

Glenbrook.

You're so correct- and it's so bloody obvious to anyone with a brain- that no-one realised PF was holding full nose up on his sidestick.

I've nothing against the sidestick or FBW- but they should be linked.

That way, at least the pilots could monitor each others inputs.

Aside from the cost of so linking the sidesticks, I can think of no dis-benefits. Maybe someone else can though....?

Further.
Is it not true that the correct response to stall in a bus is full power and full aft stick?

PF was 'doing the right thing' for a normal stall. He just didn't twig they were in an abnormal law stall.

How many aircraft have TWO stalls and those two stalls have 180 degree difference vital actions?

1. Normal stall- 'full aft stick'.
2. Alternative law stall- 'full fwd stick'.

No wonder the poor bugger was confused!

I'd like to know why the report uses illogical conventions when labelling various parameters:

http://i521.photobucket.com/albums/w...ps83978b94.gif

Pitch command, elevator position and stab position are all positive when down. I think they'd more logical with up/back being positive.

Re full back stick, there wasn't actually much full back stick-and-hold.

No wonder the poor bugger was confused! ?
 

AtomKraft, they didn't know they were in any kind of stall.