Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF447 wreckage found

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF447 wreckage found

Old 3rd Sep 2011, 00:46
  #3421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Does anybody here believe the PF was not at fault by pulling the SS full up for 3 minutes until impact with the ocean?
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 00:57
  #3422 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
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 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 01:03
  #3423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Can you imagine one of these computer operators trying to fly a B17 back to England with their talent?
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 03:49
  #3424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Itinerant
Posts: 830
Received 115 Likes on 20 Posts
bubbers44


Does anybody here believe the PF was not at fault by pulling the SS full up for 3 minutes until impact with the ocean?
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."
grizzled is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 03:54
  #3425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: EIKY
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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.
daelight is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 05:39
  #3426 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
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?
with respect daelight that is exactly what the FAA, manufacturers and some pilots are now beginning to accept. Not the fault of the pilots but industry has been allowed to dumb down a little too much.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 06:22
  #3427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 55
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?
Obviously his actions were wrong, the question is why?
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?
xcitation is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 08:11
  #3428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

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?
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
jcjeant is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 08:30
  #3429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
going forward

"Only a video would answer the question - which is what BEA are recommending going forward"

xcitation, what does "going forward" mean?
kwateow is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 10:53
  #3430 (permalink)  
 
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?
chrisN is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 11:42
  #3431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 2,173
Received 46 Likes on 30 Posts
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."
Chu Chu is online now  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 12:46
  #3432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

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."
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 ?
jcjeant is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 13:00
  #3433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?
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.

We will never know why but images may well help to explain why. Once we know why we can develop a safer system.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 13:47
  #3434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

Funny you should say that...
Not so funny ..
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.
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 ?
jcjeant is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 17:09
  #3435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,569
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Safety Concerns

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.
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?
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 17:42
  #3436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
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.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 17:43
  #3437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
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.
Lyman is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 18:46
  #3438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@safety

Obviously you don't like these questions.

So what the hell with a (still) living PPRuNer ?

Get along with the facts!
hetfield is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 19:33
  #3439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
there is nothing mysterious about pilots not being in tune with their aircraft. Scary yes, mysterious no.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 3rd Sep 2011, 21:18
  #3440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
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.
Now that 'take' on what may have happened is not unreasonable.

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.
mm43 is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.