Pilots of Air France #AF11 reported their B 777 didn’t react to commands on final
 

Air France B777 control issues landing CDG
 

AF11 JFK-CDG opb F-GSQJ

https://www.airlive.net/breaking-pil...paris-cdg/amp/

Finger trouble? Or computer trouble.
One of the two…..

Silver

Sounds like simultaneous autopilot disconnect and over speed warnings.

The incident report will make interesting reading.

SLF here - could someone please enlighten me as to the significance of changing from 26L to 26R after the go-around? Thanks.
Edit: I Google Earth CDG and note that 26R is longer, so maybe the pilots just wanted more room to stop if needed, but the radio conversation mentions 27R which I assume is just a mistake?

Arrivals at CDG are normally conducted using the outer runways (ie 26L or 27R). In this case the first approach was flown to 26L and the aircraft eventually landed on 27R. The outer runways are the same length (2700m) and are shorter than the inner runways normally used for departures. The reports are all a bit vague about what happened, but my guess is they requested the second approach to 27R due to possible interference with the ILS signal on 26L.

More or less. The outer, shorter runways are used for landings normally. Having faced an issue with the flight controls or indications, picking a runway as long as possible to cater for the unforeseen is a prudent choice.

Depending on the nature of the trouble the subsequent review would probably pick it as a 'learning point' if they didn't. I mean, not an issue with Dash-8 or similat but for a T7 it's a no-brainer assuming the A/C capabilities were compromised.

CROSS-POSTED (edit) these guys landing on the outer anyway points nicely toward the case being just another day in the office.

Same sound for the config warning when selecting landing flaps if the gear is not down on the 777 as well

CVR and FDR recordings under analysis at the French BEA

Would they typically be flying an ILS or rather RNP approach ?

"didn't react to commands" is a rather loose translation. I heard: "Problème de commande.... L'avion s'est auto-fait n'importe-quoi."
So, control problem. The plane went and did by itself n'importe-quoi.
n'importe-quoi is not always easy to translate into English. Literally it means "it does not matter what". In many cases, it can be rendered by bull****.

Here, it means that it decided to do something that had no apparent meaning and was not helpful, like, for example, turning off the glidepath and diving.

Thanks for the translation.

So in essence a: "What´s it doing now? Have you seen this before?" moment.

'probleme de controles de vol. L'avion a fait a peu pres n'importe quoi ' which I would translate : ' Flight controls problem. The Aeroplane was doing almost complete nonsense ' or maybe ' crazy stuff '. After the incident, the pilot requested vectoring for a long downwind 27R (which was eventually agreed upon by the controller) instead of coming back for 26L (Both outer runways). I suppose he wanted to be further away from inhabited areas to the south of CDG.

Typically the departing aircraft would have been on 26R while the landing traffic was on 26L . Standard configuration at CDG, which never interferes with ILS signals.

They were quite quick asking for a second approach. Although fuel would be a factor, after a serious loss of control, I might have prioritised some troubleshooting before another approach. Unless, of course, they suddenly twigged what happened.

To get back on topic - below is a brief analysis of the ADS-B data for said event. The only thing sticking out is the dropout of IAS messages. The likely cause however has nothing the do with the aircraft but is due to the receiver having provided that data dropping out (as in: aircraft flying behind obstacle as seen from receiver) and another receiver with poor signal strength has picked it up, but is missing many messages to include the not all too frequently sent BDS6,0 message containing IAS. See last plot of signal strength int he ADS-B feed.

In other words: A perfectly normal and stable looking ILS approach until lateral deviation followed by a goaround, to include a 4200fpm climb which of course would feel extreme as some pax have stated. Nice turn back on course and smooth intercept of goaround course exactly overhead the runway threshold.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....226f04d008.png

Pilots control aircraft,

Crews command systems,

Which applies in this incident ?

Were there any changes between command and control or vice versa, when, why, how ?

I think there is some confusion about the word, "commands", which AFAIK just means "controls" in an aeronautical context in French.
If I recall correctly, during the AF A330 stall accident in the Atlantic, one of the pilots said, "a moi les commandes" (or words to that effect), which translates to, "I have control" in English.

Some of the media seem to be translating the French word, "commande" into the English word, "command", whereas in this context "control" would be more appropriate.

That's correct. For example, 'the pilot at the controls' is 'le pilote aux commandes'.