AF447 wreckage found
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too many cooks? Yes, can agree to that...
Wouldn't it be acceptable for the Captain when he sensed a loss of control, to immediately re-take his seat and see for himself, rather than obtusely peering over or between them and still missing the vital clue.
Or is this a definite no-no... sorry not acquainted with cockpit protocol (apart from the the 2-day old pizza swipe)
OK then, if true, so back to PNF (and then the Captain) seeing 'stick permanently in groin' and grabbing his collar, or looking for an old pizza
I know Airbus will persist, and in principle I am not against -some form of sidestick - but you must not remove its poor relationship to the human frame as a primary control, nor the columns inherent benefits (which are inarguable and proven) from the argument.. That is fact - the feedback to one and all - without additional instrument scan and mental clutter - is INCONTROVERTIBLE.
In this accident, this Sidestick did not do its proponents any favours... please do not argue aginst such an obvious conclusion
Wouldn't it be acceptable for the Captain when he sensed a loss of control, to immediately re-take his seat and see for himself, rather than obtusely peering over or between them and still missing the vital clue.
Or is this a definite no-no... sorry not acquainted with cockpit protocol (apart from the the 2-day old pizza swipe)
Originally Posted by DWannabe
this doesn't look like a "I wonder if I should be making inputs this large?" situation, this is a "why aren't these large inputs solving the problem?" situation from the PF's point of view.
I know Airbus will persist, and in principle I am not against -some form of sidestick - but you must not remove its poor relationship to the human frame as a primary control, nor the columns inherent benefits (which are inarguable and proven) from the argument.. That is fact - the feedback to one and all - without additional instrument scan and mental clutter - is INCONTROVERTIBLE.
In this accident, this Sidestick did not do its proponents any favours... please do not argue aginst such an obvious conclusion
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SLFinAZ
nothing other then an unqualified pilot put in the wrong place at the wrong time
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is impossible for anyone doing anything from welding to cryptography to perform when his boss, or some other authority figure, is peering over his shoulder. My friend who is a teacher has to deal with "observations" by administration in the new regime at his school. He says this throws him completely off his game and makes it nearly impossible to perform.
Yes, the captain standing there observing while the plane plummeted, must be counted as the person most responsible here, both for failing to take charge and fulfill his duties as commander of his craft, as well as failing as a pilot.
Yes, the captain standing there observing while the plane plummeted, must be counted as the person most responsible here, both for failing to take charge and fulfill his duties as commander of his craft, as well as failing as a pilot.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: France
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with BOAC.
- unfortunately that is incorrect. Both pilots were 'Qualified' and in the 'right place' at the 'right time'. Where you need to place the blame is on the nature of the 'qualification' and whether they had the tools to do the job.
Too many pilots here put the blame far too early in the investigation on the crew. Let's first do the test on the aircraft with the same figures and see how easy it is to get her out of this stall. Line pilots, test pilots, 500 hrs and 20.000 hrs. No simulators please.
Only then we really know what happened there and why they did not recover from that stall.
Too many pilots here put the blame far too early in the investigation on the crew. Let's first do the test on the aircraft with the same figures and see how easy it is to get her out of this stall. Line pilots, test pilots, 500 hrs and 20.000 hrs. No simulators please.
Only then we really know what happened there and why they did not recover from that stall.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GM - thanks for the support but you will, I'm afraid, be hounded out of town by the baying mob for the rest. It is quite obvious why they did not recover from the stall. How they got to it is less easily explained.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AF447 stalled. It was an all singing, all dancing, digital aircraft. One of the pilots maintained full pitch up for quite some time obviously unaware that he had stalled.
NW6231 stalled. It was an old fashioned, bells and buzzers aircraft with very visible yoke feedback. One of the pilots maintained full pitch up for quite some time obviously unaware that he had stalled.
What the **** has this to do with any particular manufacturer.
NW6231 stalled. It was an old fashioned, bells and buzzers aircraft with very visible yoke feedback. One of the pilots maintained full pitch up for quite some time obviously unaware that he had stalled.
What the **** has this to do with any particular manufacturer.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Nothing of course
Only the pilots are involved in this accident
Cause they were qualified to fly this type of plane at high altitude with no speed indications but failed ..
They will be the first culprits shown in the trial result .. the role of Air France and Airbus and official bodies will be seen as very minor in this accident.
Why ?
You can not blame Air France for not quickly replace the pitot tubes
There were no laws that mandatory a substitute .. only non-binding recommendations
You can not blame Air France not to properly train pilots .. because they will prove that they scrupulously follow the laws of formation and training
You can not accuse Airbus .. because their systems and aircrafts have been certified by official bodies and they have given the green light for the commercial operations of Airbus
So .. who is guilty in a legal standpoint?
The three pilots (the crude reality)
Well sure .. Air France will be responsible for the payment of damages and other expenses of the victims' families (the Vienna and Montreal conventions .. etc. .. will apply)
And you can't not involve the official bodies .. etc .. as they are state entities ... (never culprit)
And it will be just some (more) recommendations from the BEA for satisfy anyone ....
What the **** has this to do with any particular manufacturer.
Only the pilots are involved in this accident
Cause they were qualified to fly this type of plane at high altitude with no speed indications but failed ..
They will be the first culprits shown in the trial result .. the role of Air France and Airbus and official bodies will be seen as very minor in this accident.
Why ?
You can not blame Air France for not quickly replace the pitot tubes
There were no laws that mandatory a substitute .. only non-binding recommendations
You can not blame Air France not to properly train pilots .. because they will prove that they scrupulously follow the laws of formation and training
You can not accuse Airbus .. because their systems and aircrafts have been certified by official bodies and they have given the green light for the commercial operations of Airbus
So .. who is guilty in a legal standpoint?
The three pilots (the crude reality)
Well sure .. Air France will be responsible for the payment of damages and other expenses of the victims' families (the Vienna and Montreal conventions .. etc. .. will apply)
And you can't not involve the official bodies .. etc .. as they are state entities ... (never culprit)
And it will be just some (more) recommendations from the BEA for satisfy anyone ....
Last edited by jcjeant; 30th Aug 2011 at 20:44.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's still an open question whether the A330 was ever taken well into a full stall during flight testing and certification, or whether they just 'nibbled at the edges of the envelope'.
That answers your "no simulators please" remark as well....
'Nibbling at the edges' does not provide useful data for behaviour in a full stall, and extrapolating those 'nibbles at the edges' does not make for a useful behaviour of the sim.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@GM, CJ :
I think the natural response from test pilots to that suggestion would be "sure, as long as you and the person that made the calculations for the maximum possible escape altitude and velocities were on the jumpseats".
I think the natural response from test pilots to that suggestion would be "sure, as long as you and the person that made the calculations for the maximum possible escape altitude and velocities were on the jumpseats".
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Around the World
Age: 74
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's first do the test on the aircraft with the same figures and see how easy it is to get her out of this stall
The only way to get out of stall was engine iddle
Rananim...
Thanks for the superb rant!
Words and notions that make us chuckle often do so because they create a mental caricature of a truth. That is to say, slightly distorted but certainly not wrong.
Re:
Despite all the head nodding and confidence regarding current Safety Management philosophy, and the "proactive" or "predictive" methodologies espoused, we as humans are very poor at foreseeing some of the most likely long-term outcomes of things we do and changes we make.
'Twas ever thus...
Thanks for the superb rant!
Words and notions that make us chuckle often do so because they create a mental caricature of a truth. That is to say, slightly distorted but certainly not wrong.
Re:
It came true. Go figure.
'Twas ever thus...
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear oh dear - this is certainly going the way of all threads on this now diminished site.
Rather than all chase after shadows of '5 degrees is not right' and 'recovery from that sort of stall needs to be tested', let's remind ourselves that the setting of ANY pitch attitude is a temporary measure followed by 'levelling off' (if appropriate) and applying the QRH, AND that it is pretty widely accepted, I think, that had sufficient forward stick been applied the nose would have lowered and the aircraft would have been unstalled.
If anyone can find a contradiction to both of those, please post a reference or can we get on with useful discussion now?
Rather than all chase after shadows of '5 degrees is not right' and 'recovery from that sort of stall needs to be tested', let's remind ourselves that the setting of ANY pitch attitude is a temporary measure followed by 'levelling off' (if appropriate) and applying the QRH, AND that it is pretty widely accepted, I think, that had sufficient forward stick been applied the nose would have lowered and the aircraft would have been unstalled.
If anyone can find a contradiction to both of those, please post a reference or can we get on with useful discussion now?
ChristiaanJ
Roger, wilco and out.
It's still an open question whether the A330 was ever taken well into a full stall during flight testing and certification, or whether they just 'nibbled at the edges of the envelope'.
That answers your "no simulators please" remark as well....
'Nibbling at the edges' does not provide useful data for behaviour in a full stall, and extrapolating those 'nibbles at the edges' does not make for a useful behaviour of the sim.
Roger, wilco and out.
It's still an open question whether the A330 was ever taken well into a full stall during flight testing and certification, or whether they just 'nibbled at the edges of the envelope'.
That answers your "no simulators please" remark as well....
'Nibbling at the edges' does not provide useful data for behaviour in a full stall, and extrapolating those 'nibbles at the edges' does not make for a useful behaviour of the sim.
Upset recovery training
Load down the referenced zip, there are tested envelopes for a lot of common air transport aircraft.
Bolding by me
There are issues associated with differences between simulator training and aircraft recoveries. A simulator can provide the basic fundamentals for upset recovery, but some realities such as positive or negative g’s, startle factor, and environmental conditions are difficult or impossible to replicate. These limitations in simulation add a degree of complexity to recovery from an actual aircraft upset because the encounter can be significantly different from that experienced during simulator training. Therefore memory checklists or procedural responses performed in training may not be repeatable during an actual upset situation. The limitations of simulators at the edges of the flight envelope can also cause fidelity issues because the simulator recovery may or may not have the same response characteristics as the aircraft being flown. However, provided the alpha and beta limits are not exceeded, the initial option responses and instrument indications of the simulator should replicate airplane responses.
There are issues associated with differences between simulator training and aircraft recoveries. A simulator can provide the basic fundamentals for upset recovery, but some realities such as positive or negative g’s, startle factor, and environmental conditions are difficult or impossible to replicate. These limitations in simulation add a degree of complexity to recovery from an actual aircraft upset because the encounter can be significantly different from that experienced during simulator training. Therefore memory checklists or procedural responses performed in training may not be repeatable during an actual upset situation. The limitations of simulators at the edges of the flight envelope can also cause fidelity issues because the simulator recovery may or may not have the same response characteristics as the aircraft being flown. However, provided the alpha and beta limits are not exceeded, the initial option responses and instrument indications of the simulator should replicate airplane responses.
The Alpha and Beta values are depicted in Appendix 3 for a lot of aircraft, from AB the A300/A310.
In short with flaps up flight validated from 0° AOA up to 12 AOA,
Wind tunnel / analythical from -5°AOA up to 12 ° AOA
Extrapolated for simulator from -5° AOA up to 30° AOA
In short with flaps up flight validated from 0° AOA up to 12 AOA,
Wind tunnel / analythical from -5°AOA up to 12 ° AOA
Extrapolated for simulator from -5° AOA up to 30° AOA
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After Spanair it's become clear to me that pilot unions want their cake and eat it - they want automation to catch their errors, but then want to blame the same automation for their reduction in situational awareness.
There's no such thing as "automation dependence" if a pilot is aware what his aeroplane is doing, and doesn't get complacent about it. Maybe that's the real issue.
There's no such thing as "automation dependence" if a pilot is aware what his aeroplane is doing, and doesn't get complacent about it. Maybe that's the real issue.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMG_0164 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
iceman50,
I am not a liar. See the picture taken after-landing, with HYDs de-pressurized.
I don't know if you are a pilot, but I am sure you're also a pen-pusher. You know all the
numbers by heart.
Somebody here defined very well that sort of guys, many moons ago.
An aircraft taking-off with a spoiler out will need more attitude (and AoA) to compensate for the lost Lift, especially when crossing the 200kts automatic flap up sequence.
Does it ring a bell?
(No, I didn't clean-up before S Speed. Yes we did have a blinkering Alpha Lock during slat/flap retraction.)
Now I understand why you don't care about stick feedback...
(...but I really don't care. I'm tired of this stupid argumentation. You didn't even care to notice the safety design issue here, of a system that may blow out a substantial part of your performance "camouflaged" by the FBW. Your approach was to, first, denigrate the aviator before he wins any point with his story. So be it. Stick with your beliefs. I'll stick with mine).
iceman50,
I am not a liar. See the picture taken after-landing, with HYDs de-pressurized.
I don't know if you are a pilot, but I am sure you're also a pen-pusher. You know all the
numbers by heart. Somebody here defined very well that sort of guys, many moons ago.
An aircraft taking-off with a spoiler out will need more attitude (and AoA) to compensate for the lost Lift, especially when crossing the 200kts automatic flap up sequence.
Does it ring a bell?
(No, I didn't clean-up before S Speed. Yes we did have a blinkering Alpha Lock during slat/flap retraction.)
Now I understand why you don't care about stick feedback...
(...but I really don't care. I'm tired of this stupid argumentation. You didn't even care to notice the safety design issue here, of a system that may blow out a substantial part of your performance "camouflaged" by the FBW. Your approach was to, first, denigrate the aviator before he wins any point with his story. So be it. Stick with your beliefs. I'll stick with mine).
Last edited by aguadalte; 31st Aug 2011 at 10:39.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No confirmation so far.
I would wait a bit more before believing that, if I were you.
Only the desperate would try to turn an incident caused by a maintenance error into an excuse to blame the manufacturer for a bad design. That's like saying it was MD's fault that the engine fell off of the DC-10 at Chicago, even though it was American Airlines that did improper engine changes. 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RetiredF4,
Thanks for the 'zip' link !
I've downloaded it, but it's over a hundred pages, so I still have to read it ...
I did see the alpha-beta plots... even more extrapolation than I expected.
Thanks for the 'zip' link !
I've downloaded it, but it's over a hundred pages, so I still have to read it ...
I did see the alpha-beta plots... even more extrapolation than I expected.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: France
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neofit
It seems to me that this test has been conducted.
The only way to get out of stall was engine idle
Hi Neofit,
Do you have any more information on the stall tests you can share with us?
The only way to get out of stall was engine idle
Hi Neofit,
Do you have any more information on the stall tests you can share with us?