AF447 wreckage found
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know lowering the nose that one time regenerated the stall warning but these guys were not pilots they were computer operators. We need our pilots back flying our airplanes, not computer operators.
bubbers44
Well... That depends on what you really mean by your question. If you mean "were the PF's actions the primary cause (or one of the primary causes) of this crash?", then, from what we know at this point, the answer is "yes."
If you mean "were the PF's actions the sole cause or contributing factor to this crash?", then the answer is clearly "no". In other words, it took a lot more than his actions alone to bring this aircraft down. (I.E, that night, during the event, one would include: Actions of PNF, inaction(s) of PNF, actions/decisions of Captain, and, as a contributing factor of course: pitots. Other contributing factors: AF training, AF SOP's, airline hiring and training in general, intrumentation perhaps, etc etc.)
Your use of the word "fault" muddies the waters in terms of accident analysis. But if you insist, and really do mean to ask, "Was it the PF's fault the a/c crashed?", the answer can only be, "partly."
Does anybody here believe the PF was not at fault by pulling the SS full up for 3 minutes until impact with the ocean?
If you mean "were the PF's actions the sole cause or contributing factor to this crash?", then the answer is clearly "no". In other words, it took a lot more than his actions alone to bring this aircraft down. (I.E, that night, during the event, one would include: Actions of PNF, inaction(s) of PNF, actions/decisions of Captain, and, as a contributing factor of course: pitots. Other contributing factors: AF training, AF SOP's, airline hiring and training in general, intrumentation perhaps, etc etc.)
Your use of the word "fault" muddies the waters in terms of accident analysis. But if you insist, and really do mean to ask, "Was it the PF's fault the a/c crashed?", the answer can only be, "partly."
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EIKY
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame?
Blubbers & Co. of the Sensationalist Anti-future Brigade ... Your soundbites make me sick!
You and others have the audacity to flippantly remark that pilots are not able to fly their aircraft? Shame on you.
You and others have the audacity to flippantly remark that pilots are not able to fly their aircraft? Shame on you.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You and others have the audacity to flippantly remark that pilots are not able to fly their aircraft?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bubbers
Does anybody here believe the PF was not at fault by pulling the SS full up for 3 minutes until impact with the ocean?
Also he was not alone. PNF and CAPT failed to identify the situation. PNF appeared early on to nag him to "go back down" which was ignored. To me the collective delusion, bar room level communications makes the incident even more puzzling. I have struggled to explain nose up by them applying wrong procedures, or bad instruments, side stick input failures. But nothing fits. Near the end the PF confides he has been nose up max all the way! Like it is the normal thing to do and he tried his best to pull out of a dive or something.
Why is it that when we look at the recorded data do their actions make no sense. Far too simple to say that all 3 failed. Only a video would answer the question - which is what BEA are recommending going forward. To me there is a piece missing. Is it possible that the recorded data differ from the actual displayed data on the PFD etc?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Not sure
This can be also a false interpretation of what they seen
People often see things differently from what is reality
After a car accident .. when eyewitnesses are asked .. they will often tell a different story from that of other
Only a video would answer the question - which is what BEA are recommending going forward. To me there is a piece missing. Is it possible that the recorded data differ from the actual displayed data on the PFD etc?
This can be also a false interpretation of what they seen
People often see things differently from what is reality
After a car accident .. when eyewitnesses are asked .. they will often tell a different story from that of other
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Xcitation, you ask “Near the end the PF confides he has been nose up max all the way! Like it is the normal thing to do and he tried his best to pull out of a dive or something. Why is it that . . . ?”
PF’s references to “crazy speed” and his persistent holding nose up suggested to some that he confused mach buffet with pre- stall buffet, and high noise with high speed rather than high AoA, which kept him thinking all the way down that he had an overspeed problem. What do you think?
PF’s references to “crazy speed” and his persistent holding nose up suggested to some that he confused mach buffet with pre- stall buffet, and high noise with high speed rather than high AoA, which kept him thinking all the way down that he had an overspeed problem. What do you think?
kwateow,
Here's BEA's summary of their recommendations on flight recorders:
"One recommends that the regulatory authorities require that aircraft undertaking public transport flights with passengers be equipped with an image recorder that makes it possible to observe the whole of the instrument panel. Another recommends defining strict rules relating to the use of such recordings."
Here's BEA's summary of their recommendations on flight recorders:
"One recommends that the regulatory authorities require that aircraft undertaking public transport flights with passengers be equipped with an image recorder that makes it possible to observe the whole of the instrument panel. Another recommends defining strict rules relating to the use of such recordings."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Another more "black box" to retrieve .......
Why not electrodes placed on the heads of the pilots to record the activities of their neurons ?
Another more "black box" to retrieve ......
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?
kwateow,
Here's BEA's summary of their recommendations on flight recorders:
"One recommends that the regulatory authorities require that aircraft undertaking public transport flights with passengers be equipped with an image recorder that makes it possible to observe the whole of the instrument panel. Another recommends defining strict rules relating to the use of such recordings."
Here's BEA's summary of their recommendations on flight recorders:
"One recommends that the regulatory authorities require that aircraft undertaking public transport flights with passengers be equipped with an image recorder that makes it possible to observe the whole of the instrument panel. Another recommends defining strict rules relating to the use of such recordings."
Why not electrodes placed on the heads of the pilots to record the activities of their neurons ?
Another more "black box" to retrieve ......
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?
We will never know why but images may well help to explain why. Once we know why we can develop a safer system.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,810
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Not so funny ..
as the pilots unions (their primary concern is of course the safety of the flights for their members and the passengers as all we know ... ) will refuse it .. as they already in the past refused video recording in cockpit...
Or maybe a extra increase of wages as incentive will make change their view on those safety problems ?
Funny you should say that...
well actually it does. We would be better able to work out why something happened. I remind you that in stall situations on other less modern aircraft the crew did exactly the same and pulled back on the stick.
Or maybe a extra increase of wages as incentive will make change their view on those safety problems ?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
I doubt that .... in the end we only think we know why and still will address the same contributors.
We know the leading contributors now ... let's get on with putting the resources there rather than waiting to satisfying our last subjective doubts with video recordings.
Just look at the CVR, do they prove anything? or do they just focus us to consider possibilities?
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?
We will never know why but images may well help to explain why. Once we know why we can develop a safer system.
We know the leading contributors now ... let's get on with putting the resources there rather than waiting to satisfying our last subjective doubts with video recordings.
Just look at the CVR, do they prove anything? or do they just focus us to consider possibilities?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well it is a dilemma I accept. However every little bit helps I would say. Video would require strict controls and a short recording period. Most accidents happen pretty quickly.
But I believe they would bring something positive to accident investigation.
But I believe they would bring something positive to accident investigation.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thales Cleared
Simultaneous reject of ADs. All three. This suggests Ice was not at work, but something else. Entry into upwelling airmass, which decreases the speed readings. What else is affected by a large shift in wind direction? AoA vanes, which would read (again, simultaneously) falsely high, perhaps quite high. What would the AutoFlight do? Decrease thrust, and PITCH DOWN, Another result? WIND SHEAR, and TCAS action.
As the a/c responds, the computers have by now rejected the airspeeds as too quickly divergent from cruise speed, and the a/p drops out.
The a/c has 1000fpm UP/VS, the Nose is DOWN 4 degrees from cruise, and due a tangential entry into the upwelling vertical, a ROLL (Left wing rise, to be more precise).
This is all on the traces, (save for the tangential entry) for the last four seconds of autoflight. I repeat, it is on the traces supplied by BEA.
The false high AA's and low "speed" have caused a spurious STALLWARN in the cockpit, as PF takes over. All but this have been done to death. Anyone? TurbineD?
So would a "resident" LKas (Last Known airspeed), have helped? Subject to inertial updating? A reserve Probe, to enter an abruptly presenting "new" airmass, and sample the "new" attitude dependent a/s? Because if this is what happened, then the Probes are fine, and the Autoflight needs some serious work.
As the a/c responds, the computers have by now rejected the airspeeds as too quickly divergent from cruise speed, and the a/p drops out.
The a/c has 1000fpm UP/VS, the Nose is DOWN 4 degrees from cruise, and due a tangential entry into the upwelling vertical, a ROLL (Left wing rise, to be more precise).
This is all on the traces, (save for the tangential entry) for the last four seconds of autoflight. I repeat, it is on the traces supplied by BEA.
The false high AA's and low "speed" have caused a spurious STALLWARN in the cockpit, as PF takes over. All but this have been done to death. Anyone? TurbineD?
So would a "resident" LKas (Last Known airspeed), have helped? Subject to inertial updating? A reserve Probe, to enter an abruptly presenting "new" airmass, and sample the "new" attitude dependent a/s? Because if this is what happened, then the Probes are fine, and the Autoflight needs some serious work.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 80
Posts: 1,330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Lyman ...
Simultaneous reject of ADs. All three. This suggests Ice was not at work, but something else. Entry into upwelling airmass, which decreases the speed readings. What else is affected by a large shift in wind direction? AoA vanes, which would read (again, simultaneously) falsely high, perhaps quite high. What would the AutoFlight do? Decrease thrust, and PITCH DOWN, Another result? WIND SHEAR, and TCAS action.
Simultaneous reject of ADs. All three. This suggests Ice was not at work, but something else. Entry into upwelling airmass, which decreases the speed readings. What else is affected by a large shift in wind direction? AoA vanes, which would read (again, simultaneously) falsely high, perhaps quite high. What would the AutoFlight do? Decrease thrust, and PITCH DOWN, Another result? WIND SHEAR, and TCAS action.
Away back in the 'AF447' thread I posited that mesoscale system to the east of 447 had a high level clockwise circulation. So it could well be that the pocket of upwelling air that confronted the a/c could have also been a southerly of + 60 KTS. If it had impacted the right wing first, the wing would have lost lift and hence the right roll and nose down.
Perhaps a closer look is needed, though super cooled icing could also have played its instantaneous card - as the conditions seemed to have been ideal for that phenomenon.
