AF447 wreckage found
Guest
Posts: n/a
Doze
Whilst in Autopilot, notice the oscillation of the THS, it varies 1-2 degrees very consistently, and smoothes when PF inputs NU. It also flies at three degrees NOSE DOWN during the same time frame. Stick obviously caged in spring tension.
Am I seeing some "Weather" reactions? Or an anomalous "Buzz"? Of course it is not flutter, but flutter does present that way.......
Whilst in Autopilot, notice the oscillation of the THS, it varies 1-2 degrees very consistently, and smoothes when PF inputs NU. It also flies at three degrees NOSE DOWN during the same time frame. Stick obviously caged in spring tension.
Am I seeing some "Weather" reactions? Or an anomalous "Buzz"? Of course it is not flutter, but flutter does present that way.......
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
DW
Thank's for post here the graphic.
In the timeline transcript the BEA write:
Between 2H10min07 and 2H10min18 the vertical speed increase to 5200 ft/min
That's indeed true .. and when you put it in correlation with the graphic you see immediately it's a vertical speed to down (loss of altitude)
Vertical speed used by BEA in transcript is misleading less the down qualification (as in the timeline the BEA don't give the difference of altitude during the time gap)
So I can at least understand a little more why the PF give a up command (stick back) as a vario of 5200 ft/min down is not a negligible vertical speed ...
DW
Thank's for post here the graphic.
In the timeline transcript the BEA write:
Between 2H10min07 and 2H10min18 the vertical speed increase to 5200 ft/min
That's indeed true .. and when you put it in correlation with the graphic you see immediately it's a vertical speed to down (loss of altitude)
Vertical speed used by BEA in transcript is misleading less the down qualification (as in the timeline the BEA don't give the difference of altitude during the time gap)
So I can at least understand a little more why the PF give a up command (stick back) as a vario of 5200 ft/min down is not a negligible vertical speed ...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jcjeant
Sorry, but not so - look at the altitude trace. From 2:10:07 to 2:10:18 the aircraft is climbing. It reaches the apogee of the climb at about 2:11:15 and then begins to fall.
Sorry, but not so - look at the altitude trace. From 2:10:07 to 2:10:18 the aircraft is climbing. It reaches the apogee of the climb at about 2:11:15 and then begins to fall.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DozyWannabe
ColganAir: I do recall that incident. They said that he had been recently trained to stick up because under certain circumanstances. So he had both the reflex and some training indicating it was the right thing. Like you say it was lower so they had no second chance after the initial nose up stall response. Clearly the problem with a stall is that you must do the opposite of normal flight i.e. a/c drops so I nose up to get back up whereas a stall - i have stalled, nose down to get my wings flying and generate lift.
It makes me think that stall recovery is ripe for automation, so long as above a certain height, AoA sensors valid, etc. We want the pilot to do something counter intuitive, quickly. Stall recovery is not practiced often enough to become familiar let alone a reflex except for special pilot categories.
Thanks for the graphic and scaling. Has anyone figured out why the speeds spike up and down between 400kts and 50kts. Looks really odd. If the PFD showed radical jumping then it confused them even more.
ColganAir: I do recall that incident. They said that he had been recently trained to stick up because under certain circumanstances. So he had both the reflex and some training indicating it was the right thing. Like you say it was lower so they had no second chance after the initial nose up stall response. Clearly the problem with a stall is that you must do the opposite of normal flight i.e. a/c drops so I nose up to get back up whereas a stall - i have stalled, nose down to get my wings flying and generate lift.
It makes me think that stall recovery is ripe for automation, so long as above a certain height, AoA sensors valid, etc. We want the pilot to do something counter intuitive, quickly. Stall recovery is not practiced often enough to become familiar let alone a reflex except for special pilot categories.
Thanks for the graphic and scaling. Has anyone figured out why the speeds spike up and down between 400kts and 50kts. Looks really odd. If the PFD showed radical jumping then it confused them even more.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Look better at the altitude line (blue first up table) .. it's a step down ... sorry but it's very evident .. with my spectacles or not 
@jcjeant
Sorry, but not so - look at the altitude trace. From 2:10:07 to 2:10:18 the aircraft is climbing. It reaches the apogee of the climb at about 2:11:15 and then begins to fall.
Sorry, but not so - look at the altitude trace. From 2:10:07 to 2:10:18 the aircraft is climbing. It reaches the apogee of the climb at about 2:11:15 and then begins to fall.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's an initial step down, for sure (at 2:10:07 or thereabouts), possibly due to turbulence - but from that point onwards the aircraft is climbing, and at 2:10:18 the climb is well established.
@bearfoil - I reckon that's the autotrim trying to ride the weather.
@bearfoil - I reckon that's the autotrim trying to ride the weather.
Guest
Posts: n/a
jcjeant....... (vertical Speed)
And it can be understood at a gut level to be consistent with an overspeed dive. (As well as STALL). More so than a STALL, actually. Nose first, she slips quickly down. Butt first, less logical for the reads they saw.
I have never been in a Stall long enough for it to get loud. Were they all thinking "Dive", at one point?
A-6 guy. See up here. I think no bumps on the ss? That would accede way too much control to the Pilots. The control is like the one on the 402, a big bakelite frisbee that gives elbow cramps on short final. A WHEEL!
And it can be understood at a gut level to be consistent with an overspeed dive. (As well as STALL). More so than a STALL, actually. Nose first, she slips quickly down. Butt first, less logical for the reads they saw.
I have never been in a Stall long enough for it to get loud. Were they all thinking "Dive", at one point?
A-6 guy. See up here. I think no bumps on the ss? That would accede way too much control to the Pilots. The control is like the one on the 402, a big bakelite frisbee that gives elbow cramps on short final. A WHEEL!
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does the Airbus have a stab trim button on the sidestick? If it does, there is absolutely NO sane reason why, in almost 3 minutes, at least one of the pilots would not take control and push both the stick and the trim button forward to try to break the stall. There is also NO sane reason to explain why those pilots would expect the plane to NOT be stalled with the excess pitch attitude they had.
Regardless of any control laws or design flaws, there was PLENTY of time to get the airplane out of the stall, and they failed to even make a reasonable attempt to do that. THAT is sad!
Regardless of any control laws or design flaws, there was PLENTY of time to get the airplane out of the stall, and they failed to even make a reasonable attempt to do that. THAT is sad!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Well it's a nice turbulence .. 5000 and more ft/min at vario and the plane stay at a down altitude for 7-10 seconds and in the same time the PF made nose up stick command
So .. and despite stick up commands (nose up) .. the aircraft still not climbing all this gap of time ..
Speak of little turbulence .. lol .. it's a downdraft for sure .. and a good ..
And I repeat .. the BEA transcript is misleading .. until you put the graphic in correlation ...
It's an initial step down, for sure (at 2:10:07 or thereabouts), possibly due to turbulence - but from that point onwards the aircraft is climbing, and at 2:10:18 the climb is well established.
@bearfoil - I reckon that's the autotrim trying to ride the weather.
@bearfoil - I reckon that's the autotrim trying to ride the weather.
So .. and despite stick up commands (nose up) .. the aircraft still not climbing all this gap of time ..
Speak of little turbulence .. lol .. it's a downdraft for sure .. and a good ..
And I repeat .. the BEA transcript is misleading .. until you put the graphic in correlation ...
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
Look better at the altitude line (blue first up table) .. it's a step down ... sorry but it's very evident .. with my spectacles or not
Second, the change of pitch (reduction) that was recorded after 0209:58 is due to the crew reduction to Mach 0.80, followed by a change of N1 of -16% in 8 seconds. Pitch decreased from +1.8° to 0° in three seconds (0210:00-0210:03).
2 h 09 min 58
La gestion de la vitesse passe de
managée à sélectée. Le Mach
sélecté est 0,8.
2 h 10
L’assiette longitudinale diminue de
1,8° vers 0° en 3 secondes.
En 8 secondes, les N1 commandés
et les N1 passent de 100 % à
84 %.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Is Vs calculated on anomalous readings? Or raw data?
The drop looks like less than 700fpm. The vertical speed trace is beyond my meager comprehension, are those fluctuations due UAS, or are those, they're not actual, are they?
That THS graphic is (they all are) full of bit rash, but the zipper trace is not bit rash, what is that dang deal, dozy?
Turbine D? Stop me. What is that? Because if it is real, the THS was oscillating 1+ degrees once per second. Right up til it quit. It looks at least noisy, if not mechanical.
A one second wave generated by the one second sampling/trigger that repeated? How long? The aft cabin must have shook like a wet dog.
The drop looks like less than 700fpm. The vertical speed trace is beyond my meager comprehension, are those fluctuations due UAS, or are those, they're not actual, are they?
That THS graphic is (they all are) full of bit rash, but the zipper trace is not bit rash, what is that dang deal, dozy?
Turbine D? Stop me. What is that? Because if it is real, the THS was oscillating 1+ degrees once per second. Right up til it quit. It looks at least noisy, if not mechanical.
A one second wave generated by the one second sampling/trigger that repeated? How long? The aft cabin must have shook like a wet dog.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@bearfoil - The graphic is too far zoomed-out and too low-resolution to draw any conclusions from anything other than large and significant trends. I don't think you're seeing quick fluctuations in THS angle so much as you are seeing the graphics renderer trying to cope with displaying the data at that granularity.
I'd say the extreme AoA was probably fouling the static data from 02:11:47 onwards.
I'd say the extreme AoA was probably fouling the static data from 02:11:47 onwards.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I think that is reasonable, and thanks for your patience. What makes it suspicious to me is its connection with a mechanism that exhibits that precise artifact in rare though actual circumstances. We'll see.
Statics? Quite agree. especially with the ROLL coupling the AoA. For that matter, the airframe was in very untrod territory, all bets off.
Just to be clear, I am noting the zipper trace at prior to ap loss. I do not take that to be AoA fluctuations, there isn't time enough between 'cycles'.
Statics? Quite agree. especially with the ROLL coupling the AoA. For that matter, the airframe was in very untrod territory, all bets off.
Just to be clear, I am noting the zipper trace at prior to ap loss. I do not take that to be AoA fluctuations, there isn't time enough between 'cycles'.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
In the timeline transcript the BEA write:
Between 2H10min07 and 2H10min18 the vertical speed increase to 5200 ft/min
That's indeed true .. and when you put it in correlation with the graphic you see immediately it's a vertical speed to down (loss of altitude)
Vertical speed used by BEA in transcript is misleading less the down qualification (as in the timeline the BEA don't give the difference of altitude during the time gap)
So I can at least understand a little more why the PF give a up command (stick back) as a vario of 5200 ft/min down is not a negligible vertical speed ...
Between 2H10min07 and 2H10min18 the vertical speed increase to 5200 ft/min
That's indeed true .. and when you put it in correlation with the graphic you see immediately it's a vertical speed to down (loss of altitude)
Vertical speed used by BEA in transcript is misleading less the down qualification (as in the timeline the BEA don't give the difference of altitude during the time gap)
So I can at least understand a little more why the PF give a up command (stick back) as a vario of 5200 ft/min down is not a negligible vertical speed ...
But sure, right before this point, two seconds before precisely, it decreased, say at -18,000 ft/min in one second... (or you can even make a 10 times much bigger number if you use 1/10th of second), because it was the false loss of about 300 ft due to UAS at 0210:05.
. ADR 1 (altitude, ft)
0210:00 -> 35,044
0210:05 -> 35,024 (UAS after this point, barely no mach correction of static pressure)
0210:09 -> 34,664 (ISIS: 34,900)
0210:11 -> 34,636 (lowest altitude recorded)
0210:17 -> 34,976
0210:25 -> 35,856
Explanations, BEA report #2 p.48: (they should have anticipated that far the cover up of those tracks "issues")
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I wonder if the PF had knowledge of this phenomena ..
Explanations, BEA report #2 p.48: (they should have anticipated that far the cover up of those tracks "issues")
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
I wonder if the PF had knowledge of this phenomena ..