AF447 wreckage found
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've read every post in this thread and there are many, many comments about 'faulty' or blocked pitot(s). I've not seen (or maybe missed) comments about the static vent(s). What exactly about the pitot(s) or static vent(s) is believed to have 'gone wrong'? Surely the electric heaters were functioning and switched on?
Lemain: in a nutshell, there is more than one kind of ice up high. Numerous posts in the three threads covering this crash discuss the micro crystals outside of usual icing environment that can be encountered and, due to size, essentially frustrate the pitot heating that usually works just find on other kinds of ice.
AERO - Engine Power Loss in Ice Crystal Conditions
Cracking a high altitude mystery - News - NRC-CNRC
While that articles discuss is a problem with engines.
What apparently happens in some pitot tubes is the ice crystals adhere, melt, then bond to the metal, which insulates following ice crystals from the heat and leads to build up in other parts of the pitot tube, heat on or not. Some months ago an early utterance from BEA seemed to support a previous industry finding that some models of pitot tube (Goodrich in this case) are a bit better at dealing with that problem than others (Thales), but numerous posters here have pointed out that until the regulating authorities (globally) create an agreed standard, it may be tougher to require/enforce a specification. This crash is perhaps a motivating factor in moving that process forward.
See this for added info ...
A330 Pitot Tube Icing Concerns Persist | AVIATION WEEK
Europeans Require Pitot Tube Modifications for A330/A340 - >> The Cranky Flier
AERO - Engine Power Loss in Ice Crystal Conditions
Cracking a high altitude mystery - News - NRC-CNRC
While that articles discuss is a problem with engines.
What apparently happens in some pitot tubes is the ice crystals adhere, melt, then bond to the metal, which insulates following ice crystals from the heat and leads to build up in other parts of the pitot tube, heat on or not. Some months ago an early utterance from BEA seemed to support a previous industry finding that some models of pitot tube (Goodrich in this case) are a bit better at dealing with that problem than others (Thales), but numerous posters here have pointed out that until the regulating authorities (globally) create an agreed standard, it may be tougher to require/enforce a specification. This crash is perhaps a motivating factor in moving that process forward.
See this for added info ...
A330 Pitot Tube Icing Concerns Persist | AVIATION WEEK
Europeans Require Pitot Tube Modifications for A330/A340 - >> The Cranky Flier
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: overthehillsandmountains
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I ask a dumb question?
With the Capt in his seat everyone knows who's commanding and that he had some training to be a commander.
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I've read every post in this thread and there are many, many comments about 'faulty' or blocked pitot(s). I've not seen (or maybe missed) comments about the static vent(s). What exactly about the pitot(s) or static vent(s) is believed to have 'gone wrong'? Surely the electric heaters were functioning and switched on?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RWA:
Agree.
This message is part of the 24 CMC messages delivered by the aircraft at time of accident:
Not explained on the 1st BEA interim report and certainly not completely explained on the second one.
In particular, we more or less 'know' that the pilots didn't have any sort of 'natural horizon' to work with. And it's only too possible that, at times anyway, they didn't have an artificial one either........?
This message is part of the 24 CMC messages delivered by the aircraft at time of accident:
02:13:14 - .1/FLR/FR0906010211 34123406IR2 1,EFCS1X,IR1,IR3,,,,ADIRU2 (1FP2),HARD
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At 2 h 12 min 02, the PF said "I don’t have any more indications", and the PNF said "we have
no valid indications".
no valid indications".
(Those, are presented to pilots):
2:12:10WRN/WN0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV 2:12:16WRN/WN0906010211 341201106FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV
2:13:08FLR/FR0906010211 34220006ISIS 1,,,,,,,ISIS(22FN-10FC) SPEED OR MACH FUNCTION,HARD 2:13:14FLR/FR0906010211 34123406IR2 1,EFCS1X,IR1,IR3,,,,ADIRU2 (1FP2),HARD
2:12:51WRN/WN0906010212 341040006NAV ADR DISAGREE
At 2 h 13 min 32, the PF said "we’re going to arrive at level one hundred". About fifteen seconds
later, simultaneous inputs by both pilots on the sidesticks were recorded and the PF said "go
ahead you have the controls".
The angle of attack, when it was valid, always remained above 35 degrees.
The recordings stopped at 2 h 14 min 28. The last recorded values were a vertical speed of
-10,912 ft/min, a ground speed of 107 kt, pitch attitude of 16.2 degrees nose-up, roll angle of
5.3 degrees left and a magnetic heading of 270 degrees.
later, simultaneous inputs by both pilots on the sidesticks were recorded and the PF said "go
ahead you have the controls".
The angle of attack, when it was valid, always remained above 35 degrees.
The recordings stopped at 2 h 14 min 28. The last recorded values were a vertical speed of
-10,912 ft/min, a ground speed of 107 kt, pitch attitude of 16.2 degrees nose-up, roll angle of
5.3 degrees left and a magnetic heading of 270 degrees.
Last edited by aguadalte; 14th Jun 2011 at 00:51. Reason: to correct my error HSP to HSS
Guest
Posts: n/a
kwateow
May I ask a dumb question?
With the Capt in his seat everyone knows who's commanding and that he had some training to be a commander.
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
Not dumb at all. In the same vein, I think prior to any additional money spent on training, a fourth bar will be issued to all who lack one. Phony confidence is still confidence, after all.
May I ask a dumb question?
With the Capt in his seat everyone knows who's commanding and that he had some training to be a commander.
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
Not dumb at all. In the same vein, I think prior to any additional money spent on training, a fourth bar will be issued to all who lack one. Phony confidence is still confidence, after all.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Captain is always the guy with four stripes.
Even when he is resting.
In my company, when we have 3 or four member crews, we have the figure of the commander. Even when the augmenting crew member is a Captain, the Commander is always the one in charge of the strategic decisions. The Captain or the SFO are only allowed to take tactical decisions.
To take a nap, before crossing the Intertropical zone is of course, unthinkable...
Even when he is resting.
In my company, when we have 3 or four member crews, we have the figure of the commander. Even when the augmenting crew member is a Captain, the Commander is always the one in charge of the strategic decisions. The Captain or the SFO are only allowed to take tactical decisions.
To take a nap, before crossing the Intertropical zone is of course, unthinkable...
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Crew lounge
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thermostat :
Thermostat : please stop confusing the "red areas" on the "satellite Wx photos" with convective cells as they appear on "our" radars.
There was obviously NO "red wall" 80 Nm ahead when the captain went to rest.
thermostat :
There is no suggestion, so far, that the radar was "not working".
Please do not forget :
1) they went through a lot of "red satellite photo Wx area" without too much problem before starting to deviate ;
2) 20' before, the LH 744 deviated only 10 miles for weather ;
3) see a post above. A 744 captain flew the same route during the same night and stated "no weather to speak about....".
IMHO, they obviously flew into clouds and encountered THE conditions leading to AA pitots freeze.
In the months before the accident, dozens of AA pitots freezes happened.
Do you, seriously, believe ALL these crews flew straight into "red wall(s)" ?
I will forever state that they should never have entered the CB in the first place.... Why else would trained pilots fly through the red area of a CB ? (see the satellite Wx photo)
There was obviously NO "red wall" 80 Nm ahead when the captain went to rest.
thermostat :
I still feel that the radar was not working.
Please do not forget :
1) they went through a lot of "red satellite photo Wx area" without too much problem before starting to deviate ;
2) 20' before, the LH 744 deviated only 10 miles for weather ;
3) see a post above. A 744 captain flew the same route during the same night and stated "no weather to speak about....".
IMHO, they obviously flew into clouds and encountered THE conditions leading to AA pitots freeze.
In the months before the accident, dozens of AA pitots freezes happened.
Do you, seriously, believe ALL these crews flew straight into "red wall(s)" ?
aguadelta:
EDIT: sorry, that ought to be addressed to aguadalte
You say that high speed protection is available in alt law.
What I read from (dated) material is that high speed stability is available. Pilot can overcome that, according to my dated sources. Overspeed prot, as I understand it, is only available in Normal Law. Protection as in "won't let the pilot go that far out of the box" by making control inputs to counter a tendency/trend to get out of the box.
What am I misunderstanding about the difference between overspeed protection and high speed stability?
EDIT: sorry, that ought to be addressed to aguadalte
You say that high speed protection is available in alt law.
What I read from (dated) material is that high speed stability is available. Pilot can overcome that, according to my dated sources. Overspeed prot, as I understand it, is only available in Normal Law. Protection as in "won't let the pilot go that far out of the box" by making control inputs to counter a tendency/trend to get out of the box.
What am I misunderstanding about the difference between overspeed protection and high speed stability?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Jun 2011 at 21:09.
Guest
Posts: n/a
As there was MachLimit on ACARS, and there is evidently no overspeed mentioned thus far, The Protection was obviously there. Have Faith.
Seriously, the warning could have been a "sensed" event, due only plugged drain. They were @ .82 (limit for conditions) No?
Seriously, the warning could have been a "sensed" event, due only plugged drain. They were @ .82 (limit for conditions) No?
bear, maybe I misremember, but didn't the reconstruction so far show that the crew choose to slow to M 0.8 in anticipation of entering turbulent air?
More to the point on this item, bear: once the crew verbalized "alternate law" they are aware that they aren't in Normal Law. That tells me that the crew are aware that they no longer have overspeed protection. The crew would thus be aware that they need to be mindful of avoiding an overspeed, since the robot won't be doing it for them.
High speed stability, as I read the chart, would "assist" if airspeed approaches (is close to?) overspeed, but a pilot could override that and make it go too fast. So it isn't a protection, by design, it's more of an assist.
In the Protection mode in Normal Law, my understanding is that the robot would do considerably more to resist the pilot trying to increase speed beyond the threshold value. (Airspeed as sensed by the infamous pitot tubes and massaged vigorously by the various flight control and nav computers. No cigarette afterwards, sorry, this is a no smoking flight!
)
With High speed stability still an available function (presuming that Alt Law was as far as things degraded ... the possible Abnormal Attitude law excursion remains "unproven")
IF erroneous or valid airspeed at the "too fast" limit is sensed,
THEN high speed stability would be expected to make an input to reduce airspeed a small amount. Not sure what that value is.
That's how I read the chart. If I'm wrong, so be it.
More to the point on this item, bear: once the crew verbalized "alternate law" they are aware that they aren't in Normal Law. That tells me that the crew are aware that they no longer have overspeed protection. The crew would thus be aware that they need to be mindful of avoiding an overspeed, since the robot won't be doing it for them.
High speed stability, as I read the chart, would "assist" if airspeed approaches (is close to?) overspeed, but a pilot could override that and make it go too fast. So it isn't a protection, by design, it's more of an assist.
In the Protection mode in Normal Law, my understanding is that the robot would do considerably more to resist the pilot trying to increase speed beyond the threshold value. (Airspeed as sensed by the infamous pitot tubes and massaged vigorously by the various flight control and nav computers. No cigarette afterwards, sorry, this is a no smoking flight!
) With High speed stability still an available function (presuming that Alt Law was as far as things degraded ... the possible Abnormal Attitude law excursion remains "unproven")
IF erroneous or valid airspeed at the "too fast" limit is sensed,
THEN high speed stability would be expected to make an input to reduce airspeed a small amount. Not sure what that value is.
That's how I read the chart. If I'm wrong, so be it.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 13th Jun 2011 at 21:25.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I vaguely remember that on the report. However, I think it is not affirmed as actually occurring. Similarly, they were about to enter warmer air, perhaps they changed their (his) mind, and retained their lift instead. This occurs at the "FROM 2:10:05" time stamp, where events are reported without their attendant time point, and thus even the sequence loses credibility (though not all of it) imo.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Someone here know who was the PF and if yes .. if this PF was complying the European law and Air France crews laws regarding licenses for be the relief of the captain on AF447 ?
Can a AF pilot post the AF law for flight deck crew management for flights like the one of AF447 (long flight) ?
kwateow
May I ask a dumb question?
With the Capt in his seat everyone knows who's commanding and that he had some training to be a commander.
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
Not dumb at all. In the same vein, I think prior to any additional money spent on training, a fourth bar will be issued to all who lack one. Phony confidence is still confidence, after all.
May I ask a dumb question?
With the Capt in his seat everyone knows who's commanding and that he had some training to be a commander.
When the Capt is resting who is in command in the cockpit?
I don't mean who is PF, nor who is more senior, but rather is the command of flight deck activity formally handed over to one of the pilots?
Not dumb at all. In the same vein, I think prior to any additional money spent on training, a fourth bar will be issued to all who lack one. Phony confidence is still confidence, after all.
The Captain is always the guy with four stripes.
Even when he is resting.
In my company, when we have 3 or four member crews, we have the figure of the commander. Even when the augmenting crew member is a Captain, the Commander is always the one in charge of the strategic decisions. The Captain or the SFO are only allowed to take tactical decisions.
To take a nap, before crossing the Intertropical zone is of course, unthinkable..
Even when he is resting.
In my company, when we have 3 or four member crews, we have the figure of the commander. Even when the augmenting crew member is a Captain, the Commander is always the one in charge of the strategic decisions. The Captain or the SFO are only allowed to take tactical decisions.
To take a nap, before crossing the Intertropical zone is of course, unthinkable..
Can a AF pilot post the AF law for flight deck crew management for flights like the one of AF447 (long flight) ?
Last edited by jcjeant; 13th Jun 2011 at 21:56.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bear,
If you were trying to remember Mach number, this is it:
From the BEA May Update:
Previously at ORARO they were level at 35K and Mach 0.82
If you were trying to remember Mach number, this is it:
From the BEA May Update:
At 2 h 08 min 07, the PNF said "you can maybe go a little to the left [...]". The airplane began a slight turn to the left, the change in relation to the initial route being about 12 degrees. The level of turbulence increased slightly and the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8.
Guest
Posts: n/a
TurbineD
Hey, how are you? Thanks for the post. I have no reputation other than partisan nitpicker, so why should I change?
"..the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8 ..."
Did they?
At that point, the change would be dialed into the AutoPilot, and we know the a/p was a shortimer from here on in....No?
Hey, how are you? Thanks for the post. I have no reputation other than partisan nitpicker, so why should I change?
"..the crew decided to reduce the speed to about Mach 0.8 ..."
Did they?
At that point, the change would be dialed into the AutoPilot, and we know the a/p was a shortimer from here on in....No?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Gone Flying...
Age: 63
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lonewolf_50
Yes you're absolutely right, I meant High Speed Stability.
Thanks for the correction L.
Edit: correction made
Yes you're absolutely right, I meant High Speed Stability.
Thanks for the correction L.
Edit: correction made
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Bear,
I am sure if the BEA reported this as they did, the speed was reduced to Mach 0.80, the turbulance penetration speed and it was done by moving the throttle levers while in AP/AT. When you do this, it doesn't drop out of AP/AT. However, when the disagree event occurred and the AP & AT did dropped out, the thrust locked into whatever the setting was in AP/AT. So, I assume this would be a slightly reduced N1% verses normal level cruise N1%. If my assumption is correct, it sure influenced speed bleedoff (more rapid) in the subsequent climb event to 38K as the throttles were never touched until the TOGA command.
I am sure if the BEA reported this as they did, the speed was reduced to Mach 0.80, the turbulance penetration speed and it was done by moving the throttle levers while in AP/AT. When you do this, it doesn't drop out of AP/AT. However, when the disagree event occurred and the AP & AT did dropped out, the thrust locked into whatever the setting was in AP/AT. So, I assume this would be a slightly reduced N1% verses normal level cruise N1%. If my assumption is correct, it sure influenced speed bleedoff (more rapid) in the subsequent climb event to 38K as the throttles were never touched until the TOGA command.
Last edited by Jetdriver; 14th Jun 2011 at 03:08.