AF447

[Dutch Bru]

PN

Its obvious that ACARS maintenance messages are not to be dealt with by the base station in real time, since the're aimed at informing maintenance with a view to future deployability of company aircraft in general.

However, ACARS is also used, mainly by long distance operators, to exchange the latest info on weather along long distance routes.

Failing of publishing this type of info for the AF447 flght keeps a cloud over issues relevant in this cae, period.

[chefrp]

Pointus Navigator

They could be on shifts in different time zones....i.e. like my bank, never know who or where I'm talking to.

And yes your right it would be boreing. I guess it wouldnt be someones only job, sitting there waiting for bad news. But it could be part of an intergrated network to help maintain safety.

It just seems like this might be an area where progress could made. Only because these are the only messages that we know of at this time.

thanks for the feed back

RP

[Svarin]

Thoughts on a QRH

1 – FACT : a careful reading of the first 3 pages from the (probably leaked) ACA report (available at Eurocockpit - Accueil, direct link is http://www.eurocockpit.com/docs/ACA.pdf). Everything is in these first 3 pages, although the rest is well worth reading too. In short, one of two incidents on A330s with loss/discrepancy in all airspeed indications.


2 - HYPOTHESIS : from the available sequence of ACARS messages, let us postulate that the pilots in AF447 faced the same situation as did the ACA flights mentioned above.


3 - FACT : in the last paragraph on page 3 of said ACA report, the ACA flight Pilot Flying deliberately ignored all STALL warnings, contrary to what is requested by TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS from the UNRELIABLE SPEED INDICATION C/L.


4 - HYPOTHESIS : following the same C/L, facing the same situation caused by the same conditions, let us postulate that the AF447 pilots do indeed heed the STALL warnings, as requested by C/L. In so doing, while having a mental picture of trying to fly away from a low speed stall condition, they actually fly towards a high speed buffet and beyond.


The ACA incident lasted 1 min 26 sec. It is not unreasonable to assume an approximately 4 minutes duration for the AF flight, from 0210Z to 0214Z.
From the initial condition : loss of all 3 airspeed indications, the ACARS messages pertaining to flight controls and other instrument failures are aggravating circumstances, but they are not necessary to explain the scenario at point 4 above.


Another report that can be found on the internet, regarding one AF 908 CDG TNR, describes a very similar situation. Again, the pilots disregarded the STALL warnings.


I remain ignorant of the actual circumstances of the AF447 accident. The reasoning above is, by necessity, a conjecture. It is however founded on very simple hypotheses, making it a good candidate to confront a sharp Occam's razor.


I find it necessary to point out the fact in item 3 above, regarding STALL warnings and how the C/L deals with these.

[Dutch Bru]

ELAC

Appreciate your views, but the AF447 photo material as discussed in previous posts confirm that the flight in question was carrying a mobile rest area below deck aft of the wing section

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by chefrp

ClippedCub....

Understood.....thats why I asked.

Is it possible to have support from the ground when these ACARS messages come streaming in? That would make more sense.

The messages were not looked at till later, after the fact. And I assume this is the first time they have been so scrutanized.

I guess my faith in modern technology has taken a hit, and I assume that there has to be a way in this day and age to make these systems even safer than they already are.....

In addition to the auto messages to maintenance, ACARS can be used to send and receive messages to and from Flight Dispatch, Maintenance, Crew Scheduling, etc. They can ask for help and receive it any time they want.

In this case there was probably no request by the pilots because there would not have been enough time.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by ELAC

Dutch Bru,

Not all A330s are equipped the same. The container you are referring to is an LDMCR (Lower Deck Mobile Crew Rest), which in most carriers is used as a cabin crew rest facility. Many carriers equip the A330 with a seperate pilot crew rest bunk, often located immediately behind the cockpit opposite the forward lavatory. Some carriers, however, have placed this bunk in other locations and to my knowledge there has been no confirmation of whether AF 447 had a bunk, and if so where it was located. Being current on one carrier's aircraft won't tell you how another carrier has chosen to configure such items.

ELAC

Some A330 operators use a regular J class seat for crew rest with 3 pilots operations.

Originally Posted by Dutch Bru

Appreciate your views, but the AF447 photo material as discussed in previous posts confirm that the flight in question was carrying a mobile rest area below deck aft of the wing section

That may have been for Flight Attendants only

[chefrp]

Lost in Saigon

thanks for the info.

I guess in certain situations there is not much you can do but try your best.

It's nice to know that the crew can recieve info from the ground.
Can they recieve weather reports/warnings as well, or do they rely on thier on-board radar for this?

Thanks......

[Svarin]

Flight Crew In Cruise

Gentlemen,

I have tried very hard to refrain from commenting on the 'who was seated where' issue. Too many uninformed comments and speculation casting doubts on ability or seriousness have been spread here.

Gentlemen, I know as HARD FACTS the following two points, directly relevant to the discussion about any AF flight:

1- the Captain is responsible for organizing rest shifts on any flight with more than basic pilots complement. He takes into account all parameters, including fatigue and experience.

2- all pilots in AF who are not Captains are First Officers, there are no Second Officers, nor any kind of 'cruise pilot' or 'relief pilot'. All long haul aircraft rated F/Os are trained specifically up to what some refer to as 'Cruise Captain standards'.

[chefrp]

Svarin....

Would it really make a difference who was in the right seat that night?

[Svarin]

Precisely : no.

[chefrp]

Unless maybe if it was

"John Wayne"!

[PJ2]

Dutch Bru;
You said:

PJ2, with respect for your posts in general, your questions about the mobile crew rest area on the 330 has already been dealt with elsewhere in this thread. Post nr 773 and subsequently (perhaps deleted inputs) from colleagues to confirm that A330 mobile rest area come in the form of a LD6 container is normally located below deck on the hight of the 3L/R doors, aft of the wings.

Re " your posts in general"...what about them? I comment on a lot of items and raised the crew rest location once, so not sure what "my posts in general" means. Here's what I posted on June 09, which includes the information you repeat above:

Originally Posted by PJ2, Post#1008

I might observe that the "CREW REST" wreckage may likely be from the F/A crew rest module, not the cockpit crew rest area. I say this because the cockpit crew area is not labeled, it generally being near the cockpit. But the F/A module is, in some cases, removable and as such, labeling makes a bit more sense, (when stored...not when 'in use'). The location of this module varies with airline - some are mid-wing, others near the tail section; to the best of my knowledge, all such modules are below the main cabin floor.

I thought you said somewhere you were current on the 330

You clearly haven't read many of my posts so let me help you out:

Originally Posted by PJ2, Post#1637

I have flown 18,000+hrs since 1967 and have flown as captain and as an A320 instructor, 319s, 320s, 330s and 340s since 1992, (I'm now retired) and even with that background I do not consider myself beyond learning, (fearing to go where angels tread), am not an IT or structural engineer, but I know a thing or two about flight safety work and about the Airbus (and other types, B767, B727, L1011, DC8, DC9).

I am indeed recently retired, not current on anything at the moment. Up until a short time ago I was active in the areas under discussion, (flight data analysis, writing Airbus A330 CBT training modules). I make the fact that I am retired clear on a regular basis so that people understand I am not writing from current experience but still have something to contribute to the dialogue. And finally,

Originally Posted by Dutch Bru in response to ELAC

Appreciate your views, but the AF447 photo material as discussed in previous posts confirm that the flight in question was carrying a mobile rest area below deck aft of the wing section

Maybe, maybe not - where'd you get the info from? BTW, are we to get stuck on this minutae as well?

ELAC;

Being current on one carrier's aircraft won't tell you how another carrier has chosen to configure such items.

Precisely - shoulda said that but didn't think it necessary at the time - guess it was.

LiSaigon;

That may have been for Flight Attendants only

Yes, almost certainly.

Cockpit crew rest is described in another post here in this discussion; a J-seat with a velcroed-curtain instead of a dedicated rest cubicle - it's all about cost and real-estate.

I know of no cockpit crew rest installations which are not near the cockpit. I have seen one option when in the cutting-metal stage for cockpit crew rest facilities below the tail where the F/A's facility was also located and it was rejected out of hand by the pilots association, for what ought to be, (but I take nothing for granted on this thread), obvious reasons.

[jungle drums]

Elt & Cvr/fdr

1. Has there been any more recent information from the naval resources trying to listen to the signals coming from the AF 447 ELT/CVR/FDR? Should not a reasonable point of impact (within 100nm box) be calculable from the debris field locations? I hope so at 100hrs/4 days to scan each 100sq/nm? A rough guess at roughly 10kts...

2. Is there equipment out there which is capable of scanning the sea bed for relatively small metallic objects (magnetic anomolies such as an aircraft's airframe or engines)? Or does it have to be Titanic size?
And if so, at what sort of range?
Perhaps these sort of questions can't be answered directly for military reasons. A pity that SOSUS has already been negated.

3. Why is stated in this thread that there was possibly no Standby Attitude available (is it called ISUS in the Airbus A330?)? A Standby AI has saved my life after a lightning strike in a TS. I would think that if the airframe is intact and any attitude indication is available, then an aircraft should be basically controllable irrespective of erroneous airspeed indication. Yes, in any case of an ADC failure it takes a cool head to ignore all the BS (overspeed and underspeed/stall warnings) and set a reasonable attitude and power. But as we are all trained - attitude + power = performance.

That leads me to ask - is the A330 Standby AI display a mechanical/analogue or digital/electrical one? (With my limited, but quite frightening experience in TS and lightning, I guess that I have now have a psychological preference for the non-electrical mechanical/analogue standby AI).

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by chefrp

Lost in Saigon


Can they receive weather reports/warnings as well, or do they rely on their on-board radar for this?

Thanks......

They can only send or receive text messages. Flight Dispatch can warn them of hazardous weather or even suggest a re-route. Sometimes warnings can be in the form of SIGMETS (Significant Meteorological Information weather advisory)

SIGMETS are issued to warn pilots of un-forecast or changing hazardous weather conditions. SIGMET: Information from Answers.com

But while en-route, Airborne Radar is the primary way to avoid thunderstorms.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by jungle drums

2. Is there equipment out there which is capable of scanning the sea bed for relatively small metallic objects (magnetic anomolies such as an aircraft's airframe or engines)? Or does it have to be Titanic size?
And if so, at what sort of range?
Perhaps these sort of questions can't be answered directly for military reasons. A pity that SOSUS has already been negated..

I don't believe Sosus would have helped in this instance.

Magnetic anomoly detection is essentially short range. I don't know but would guess that best system might be a towed MAD sensor which could operate near the sea bed. If the range was greater than 5000 feet I would be surprised. Sidescan sonar offers a much better chance of painting something but how soon it might be recognised is entirely different.

[Lost in Saigon]

Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator

Seems two possibilities:

One is for an operations officer with a modicum of training to act as a brains trust. The second is for a pukka engineer from the shop operating on a rooster as an extra duty.

Either way there would be no question of being 'on call' as this incident appears to have been all over between 4 and 14 minutes. I suspect that this would provide a conclusive arguement why it is not reasonable to have an engineer on duty.

Most major airlines already have this in place. (at least mine does). Major Airlines are 24 hour operations and there is always some one to talk to.

In a matter of minutes we can be patched into Maintenance Control, Duty Pilot, Chief Pilot, or anybody else we desire to speak to using SATCOM and/or ACARS.

[Pontius Navigator]

Originally Posted by Lost in Saigon

Most major airlines already have this in place. (at least mine does). Major Airlines are 24 hour operations and there is always some one to talk to.

In a matter of minutes we can be patched into Maintenance Control, Duty Pilot, Chief Pilot, or anybody else we desire to speak to using SATCOM and/or ACARS.

Excellent. But matter of minutes

[JD-EE]

Pontius, magnetic detectors are "another square law" device. The closer you are the smaller an object you can detect. And since you're expanding much like a radio wave as your "surface" gets twice as far from the detector the signal is reduce by twice squared or four times.

And with this plane I get the impression there are some largish metallic items to find such as the engines. The rest is basically non-metallic or small. But, of course, aluminum is not particularly a live item for magnetic detection.

All that can really be said is, "It's been done before. If it is important enough this time it'll likely be done again."

{^_-}

[ELAC]

Quote:
Today 21:19 Dutch Bru

ELAC

Appreciate your views, but the AF447 photo material as discussed in previous posts confirm that the flight in question was carrying a mobile rest area below deck aft of the wing section

Dutch Bru,

Yes, that's obvious to all of us who have looked at the photos, but it's not particularly relevant. I didn't suggest that AF447 didn't have one, and I don't think that PJ2's comment was intended to infer that either. What I tried to impart is that the parts recovered don't tell us anything about where the flight deck crew member might have been resting or if indeed he was resting at all.

That a portion of the LDMCR has been recovered is, in itself, about as relevant as the fact that a spoiler panel has been recovered (actually, less so).

ELAC

[lomapaseo]

That a portion of the LDMCR has been recovered is, in itself, about as relevant as the fact that a spoiler panel has been recovered (actually, less so).

I thought that the inference from the photo was whether it was occupied and whether this was indicative of no specfic CC warning about turbulence.

I don't know the answers to this but I had sensed in the thread that is why it was being discussed.