AF447 wreckage found
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
I'm not on the professional side ...
Get a life men.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Yes .. you are missing the implications of all this in the court of justice (where the responsabilities and blames are given)
BTW .. if any professional AF pilot can post the AF rules for flight deck management I will be more than happy.
or am i missing something here ?
BTW .. if any professional AF pilot can post the AF rules for flight deck management I will be more than happy.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jcjeant
if any professional AF pilot can post the AF rules for flight deck management I will be more than happy.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi camel,
I have read the report just like you. There was a hand-over in the last sequence reported and possibly it was the Captain taking over the LHS from the junior FO which was PNF until then (this is a conjecture, but very probable if usual resting order was respected).
The PF is reported to have made the previous meteo briefing before the Captain rest and it was also obviously not the junior FO talking here.
Otherwise, what would be the point to have one on board as relief pilot?
LHS restriction/qualification is phase specific, it is not at cruise level or you would have systematically the need for two Captains per long-haul flight (which is not the case). This first report was published about two years ago and seriously, nobody noticed that?
Originally Posted by camel
ok so if the PF was the more experienced f/o in the rhs and then couldnt handle the problems thrown at them ..was control handed over to the other less experienced f/o in the lhs?
if control was not handed over then why didnt the capt just swap places with the less experienced pnf f/o in the lhs ?
if control was not handed over then why didnt the capt just swap places with the less experienced pnf f/o in the lhs ?
The PF is reported to have made the previous meteo briefing before the Captain rest and it was also obviously not the junior FO talking here.
Originally Posted by camel
is a 'frozen' atpl even allowed to sit in the lhs as pnf ?
LHS restriction/qualification is phase specific, it is not at cruise level or you would have systematically the need for two Captains per long-haul flight (which is not the case). This first report was published about two years ago and seriously, nobody noticed that?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: SE Asia
Age: 39
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant
thanks , however i think i am just about able to imagine any implications regarding crew composition/seating arrangements.
i also have just read on a previous post that control was indeed handed to/taken over by the lhs occupant around 45 secs before the end.missed that one ...
Takata
ok thanks ,what you say makes sense for sure ..perhaps out of this will come the suggestion that maybe another relief captain should be the normal instead of a relief f/o ? of course that would increase costs ...but as we all know safety is the No 1 priority...... right ?
thanks , however i think i am just about able to imagine any implications regarding crew composition/seating arrangements.
i also have just read on a previous post that control was indeed handed to/taken over by the lhs occupant around 45 secs before the end.missed that one ...
Takata
ok thanks ,what you say makes sense for sure ..perhaps out of this will come the suggestion that maybe another relief captain should be the normal instead of a relief f/o ? of course that would increase costs ...but as we all know safety is the No 1 priority...... right ?
Last edited by camel; 16th Jun 2011 at 17:37.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I'm sure we will write more about all this in few (long) years when the things will be in the justice court ......
BTW .. licences are not tradition matter .. they are things required by the laws for perfom some things in aviation or any other occupations where special qualifications are required
Of course you can put a monkey on the commands of a plane or a bus .. if the travel have a happy end .. nobody will complain .. but if it's not the case .............
There is no such "written" set of rules about company flight deck management. It is left to the Captain's choice (but it will follow company "traditions"). On the ohter hand, a LHS qualified pilot is required during two specific phases: from take-off to top of the climb and from top of descent to landing.
BTW .. licences are not tradition matter .. they are things required by the laws for perfom some things in aviation or any other occupations where special qualifications are required
Of course you can put a monkey on the commands of a plane or a bus .. if the travel have a happy end .. nobody will complain .. but if it's not the case .............
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if control was not handed over then why didnt the capt just swap places with the less experienced pnf f/o in the lhs ?
or am i missing something here ?
or am i missing something here ?
stepwilk, nicely said.
takata:
{EDITED thanks to TLB's point that I have misinterpreted the reports. Thanks TLB.}
Might I re-phrase what you posted like this?
The BEA report indicates that the other pilot attempted to take control of an already stalled aircraft whose rate of descent was greater than 10,000 feet per minute. He had "X" seconds to get it under control before it hit the ocean.
It paints a slightly different picture than your post does.
Aside: I cannot offer you a good value for X, but from what is available so far my estimate is that the number less than sixty.
takata:
There was a hand-over in the last quence reported and possibly it was the Captain taking over the LHS from the junior FO which was PNF until then
Might I re-phrase what you posted like this?
The BEA report indicates that the other pilot attempted to take control of an already stalled aircraft whose rate of descent was greater than 10,000 feet per minute. He had "X" seconds to get it under control before it hit the ocean.
It paints a slightly different picture than your post does.
Aside: I cannot offer you a good value for X, but from what is available so far my estimate is that the number less than sixty.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 17th Jun 2011 at 13:10.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do not think that we can assume that the Captain took over the LHS prior to impact. Given that the Captain's body was recovered floating on the surface days after the accident and that the two copilot's bodies were apparently recovered on the ocean floor still strapped into their seats, it seems unlikely that the Captain got into the LHS.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TLB, I agree. The first two bodies recovered by Ile de Sein were those of the two first officers, and recovered in their seats. The fourth seat in the cockpit was also recovered, and its possible BEA has an interest in the position of the straps. It is unclear whether the third seat was ever retrieved.
takata,
(Wondered where you were...) This AW&ST article:
Air France Crash Suggests Inadequate Training | AVIATION WEEK
– which PJ2 has provided a link to on the Tech Log thread, states that the less-experienced co-pilot was the PF in the RHS. I know nothing of Air France protocols, but is it possible that he was the P2 or even the P1U/S (pilot-in-command under-supervision) on the GIG-CDG leg, and that the more-experienced co-pilot was acting as the relief pilot? How does a junior co-pilot get regular landings, if so qualified? This one seems to have been qualified. (I am assuming that the relief pilot is the one who occupies the P3 seat for T/O and landing, and in the cruise moves into the seat of whichever pilot is taking a rest-break.)
(Wondered where you were...) This AW&ST article:
Air France Crash Suggests Inadequate Training | AVIATION WEEK
– which PJ2 has provided a link to on the Tech Log thread, states that the less-experienced co-pilot was the PF in the RHS. I know nothing of Air France protocols, but is it possible that he was the P2 or even the P1U/S (pilot-in-command under-supervision) on the GIG-CDG leg, and that the more-experienced co-pilot was acting as the relief pilot? How does a junior co-pilot get regular landings, if so qualified? This one seems to have been qualified. (I am assuming that the relief pilot is the one who occupies the P3 seat for T/O and landing, and in the cruise moves into the seat of whichever pilot is taking a rest-break.)
Locked door wrote:-
Don't forget there's a recall drill for unreliable airspeed, and it doesn't call for heroics from the pilots. If all else fails 90% N1 and 2.5 degrees nose up in the cruise will keep you safe in almost any heavy jet.
Basic stuff.
SKS777FLYER wrote:-
Yes, basic "stuff"........ provided there are presentations of attitude by flight instruments on that off chance of a pitch black night perhaps in cloud where a horizon is not remotely visible.... provided there is a stable platform to fly
So far we only have guesses and educated guesses to what those Air France aviators faced those fateful last minutes.
Locked door is So Right.
What sks77 and all the buffoons forget is that the PFD is Repeat 2 separate instruments. The tapes are Pitot-static and the center is IRS. Thus PITCH and POWER are your friends. Screw cross checking.. Fly the effing plane. AND, it is counter-intuitive but stop checking the tapes. Fly attitude and power.The problem all Bus pilots have is normal law which prevents stalling, over speeding and over banking. But I flew the mini bus and when it went senile one day I hand flew with the A/T's out of the detent. Complete non-event. These guys may never have been able to fly out of the problem they flew into but future pilots need to be educated. Not on crosschecking but, as locked door said. Attitude and thrust. Pitch and Power.
Don't forget there's a recall drill for unreliable airspeed, and it doesn't call for heroics from the pilots. If all else fails 90% N1 and 2.5 degrees nose up in the cruise will keep you safe in almost any heavy jet.
Basic stuff.
SKS777FLYER wrote:-
Yes, basic "stuff"........ provided there are presentations of attitude by flight instruments on that off chance of a pitch black night perhaps in cloud where a horizon is not remotely visible.... provided there is a stable platform to fly
So far we only have guesses and educated guesses to what those Air France aviators faced those fateful last minutes.
Locked door is So Right.
What sks77 and all the buffoons forget is that the PFD is Repeat 2 separate instruments. The tapes are Pitot-static and the center is IRS. Thus PITCH and POWER are your friends. Screw cross checking.. Fly the effing plane. AND, it is counter-intuitive but stop checking the tapes. Fly attitude and power.The problem all Bus pilots have is normal law which prevents stalling, over speeding and over banking. But I flew the mini bus and when it went senile one day I hand flew with the A/T's out of the detent. Complete non-event. These guys may never have been able to fly out of the problem they flew into but future pilots need to be educated. Not on crosschecking but, as locked door said. Attitude and thrust. Pitch and Power.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Flown-it
I completely agree with what you say HOWEVER it very much depends on when you recognize what's going on.
Sure setting 2.5deg 90%N1 will get you out of most UAS situations but if you get an aircraft severely close to coffin corner and low on speed you can set 2.5deg 90%N1 it isn't going to do jack to your situation (Backside drag curve etc)
In all cases though: Aviate before anything else. Any aircraft can be flown directly (except mil jets that are inherently unstable) but the current mindset is that ''the more automation the better''. I am still not buying it
I completely agree with what you say HOWEVER it very much depends on when you recognize what's going on.
Sure setting 2.5deg 90%N1 will get you out of most UAS situations but if you get an aircraft severely close to coffin corner and low on speed you can set 2.5deg 90%N1 it isn't going to do jack to your situation (Backside drag curve etc)
In all cases though: Aviate before anything else. Any aircraft can be flown directly (except mil jets that are inherently unstable) but the current mindset is that ''the more automation the better''. I am still not buying it
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Chris,
You wondered where I was? Simple: I took my "rest-break"...don't you remember my planned Alsacian two weeks vacation? Now, I'm catching up with the 50+ added pages in between!
About AW&ST article linked by PJ2, the crew as described seems based on the previous (bad) press headline stating that "AF447 Baby pilot killed 228" that followed the 27 May BEA update.
In my opinion, this theory is nothing more than speculation as the BEA obviously refrained from saying precisely who was in command when the event started (precisely for avoiding such kind of headlines pointing at one crew "failure"). All we do know for sure is that both FOs were in charge at that point and that the Captain was resting.
Nonetheless, this new fact was a confirmation of what we have already deduced in 2009 based on a classical AF long-haul operation: usually, the Captain will take the second rest-break, the senior FO will become PF in RHS and the junior FO will take the LHS as PNF. Reading carefully the BEA update, it will become clear that the meteo briefing reported was obviously conducted by the senior FO, which was also the PF during the preceding cruise leg and take-off.
This is possibly the reason why there was no early hand-over (between FOs) up to the very last moment (as the actual PF was the most qualified on type onboard). Hence, the very late hand-over could be simply due to the junior FO and Captain switching seats (and I fully agree that it would be some kind of desperate move).
Considering that the aircraft was stabilized in attitude with barely no g-load variation, it would make sense if the Captain was disposed to try something himself after constating that his senior FO failed to recover: "go ahead" said the FO. If the junior FO has been the PF until then, I suspect that the senior FO would have tried some imputs much sooner.
Speculations about who's body related to salvaged cockpit seats is based on what? There was strictly no communication about the first (and later) bodies recovered in relation with any flight deck element.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
takata,
(Wondered where you were...) This AW&ST article:
Air France Crash Suggests Inadequate Training | AVIATION WEEK
– which PJ2 has provided a link to on the Tech Log thread, states that the less-experienced co-pilot was the PF in the RHS. I know nothing of Air France protocols, but is it possible that he was the P2 or even the P1U/S (pilot-in-command under-supervision) on the GIG-CDG leg, and that the more-experienced co-pilot was acting as the relief pilot? How does a junior co-pilot get regular landings, if so qualified? This one seems to have been qualified. (I am assuming that the relief pilot is the one who occupies the P3 seat for T/O and landing, and in the cruise moves into the seat of whichever pilot is taking a rest-break.)
(Wondered where you were...) This AW&ST article:
Air France Crash Suggests Inadequate Training | AVIATION WEEK
– which PJ2 has provided a link to on the Tech Log thread, states that the less-experienced co-pilot was the PF in the RHS. I know nothing of Air France protocols, but is it possible that he was the P2 or even the P1U/S (pilot-in-command under-supervision) on the GIG-CDG leg, and that the more-experienced co-pilot was acting as the relief pilot? How does a junior co-pilot get regular landings, if so qualified? This one seems to have been qualified. (I am assuming that the relief pilot is the one who occupies the P3 seat for T/O and landing, and in the cruise moves into the seat of whichever pilot is taking a rest-break.)
About AW&ST article linked by PJ2, the crew as described seems based on the previous (bad) press headline stating that "AF447 Baby pilot killed 228" that followed the 27 May BEA update.
In my opinion, this theory is nothing more than speculation as the BEA obviously refrained from saying precisely who was in command when the event started (precisely for avoiding such kind of headlines pointing at one crew "failure"). All we do know for sure is that both FOs were in charge at that point and that the Captain was resting.
Nonetheless, this new fact was a confirmation of what we have already deduced in 2009 based on a classical AF long-haul operation: usually, the Captain will take the second rest-break, the senior FO will become PF in RHS and the junior FO will take the LHS as PNF. Reading carefully the BEA update, it will become clear that the meteo briefing reported was obviously conducted by the senior FO, which was also the PF during the preceding cruise leg and take-off.
This is possibly the reason why there was no early hand-over (between FOs) up to the very last moment (as the actual PF was the most qualified on type onboard). Hence, the very late hand-over could be simply due to the junior FO and Captain switching seats (and I fully agree that it would be some kind of desperate move).
Considering that the aircraft was stabilized in attitude with barely no g-load variation, it would make sense if the Captain was disposed to try something himself after constating that his senior FO failed to recover: "go ahead" said the FO. If the junior FO has been the PF until then, I suspect that the senior FO would have tried some imputs much sooner.
Speculations about who's body related to salvaged cockpit seats is based on what? There was strictly no communication about the first (and later) bodies recovered in relation with any flight deck element.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi jcjeant,
Well jcjeant, you should have a look at the BEA published facts rather than reporting those "rumors" only aimed at descrediting all the work done. Those are summarized at the end of each interim report, including the last 27 May note.
I Paraphrased the BEA statements (numbering is mine) and one may read in compilation with such issue:
At this stage of the investigation, on the basis of the factual elements gathered in the course of the investigation published in Interim reports of 2 July 2009(a), 17 December 2009(b) and an update on Investigation of 27 May 2011(c), The following facts have been established by the BEA:
---------------------------------------------------
100. AIRCRAFT AND CREW
---------------------------------------------------
. 101a. The crew possessed the licenses and ratings required to undertake the flight;
. 102a. The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained in accordance with the regulations;
. 103a. The airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems, except on one of the three radio management panels;
. 104c. The composition of the crew was in accordance with the operator’s procedures;
. 105c. At the time of the event, the weight and balance of the airplane were within the operational limits;
. 106c. At the time of the event, the two co-pilots were seated in the cockpit and the Captain was resting;
. 107c. The Captain returned to the cockpit about 1 min 30 after the disengagement of the autopilot.
Originally Posted by jcjeant
I'm sure we will write more about all this in few (long) years when the things will be in the justice court ......
BTW .. licences are not tradition matter .. they are things required by the laws for perfom some things in aviation or any other occupations where special qualifications are required
Of course you can put a monkey on the commands of a plane or a bus .. if the travel have a happy end .. nobody will complain .. but if it's not the case .............
BTW .. licences are not tradition matter .. they are things required by the laws for perfom some things in aviation or any other occupations where special qualifications are required
Of course you can put a monkey on the commands of a plane or a bus .. if the travel have a happy end .. nobody will complain .. but if it's not the case .............
I Paraphrased the BEA statements (numbering is mine) and one may read in compilation with such issue:
At this stage of the investigation, on the basis of the factual elements gathered in the course of the investigation published in Interim reports of 2 July 2009(a), 17 December 2009(b) and an update on Investigation of 27 May 2011(c), The following facts have been established by the BEA:
---------------------------------------------------
100. AIRCRAFT AND CREW
---------------------------------------------------
. 101a. The crew possessed the licenses and ratings required to undertake the flight;
. 102a. The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained in accordance with the regulations;
. 103a. The airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems, except on one of the three radio management panels;
. 104c. The composition of the crew was in accordance with the operator’s procedures;
. 105c. At the time of the event, the weight and balance of the airplane were within the operational limits;
. 106c. At the time of the event, the two co-pilots were seated in the cockpit and the Captain was resting;
. 107c. The Captain returned to the cockpit about 1 min 30 after the disengagement of the autopilot.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Crew lounge
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"How does a junior co-pilot get regular landings, if so qualified? This one seems to have been qualified. (I am assuming that the relief pilot is the one who occupies the P3 seat for T/O and landing, and in the cruise moves into the seat of whichever pilot is taking a rest-break.)"
ALL F/O's were/are fully qualified to fly the A/C for T/O cruise and ldg.
At the time of the crash, il was only suggested that, at captain's discretion, the most experienced F/O should be PF seating in the right seat.
Pretty obvious, since, at that time, F/O's did not get (imho) enough training for flying from the left seat.
In response to the the crash (?), routine F/O training include more sim flying from the left seat. ALL F/O's are now well trained to fly from the left seat.
It's still up to the captain to decide who will be seating in the left or right seat during his rest time : the right seat F/O is PF ; the left seat F/O is "captain" (ie performing "captain's items of emergency procedures).
This is possibly the reason why there was no early hand-over (between FOs) up to the very last moment (as the actual PF was the most qualified on type onboard). Hence, the very late hand-over could be simply due to the junior FO and Captain switching seats (and I fully agree that it would be some kind of desperate move).
From TLB:
I do not think that we can assume that the Captain took over the LHS prior to impact. Given that the Captain's body was recovered floating on the surface days after the accident, and that the two copilot's bodies were apparently recovered on the ocean floor still strapped into their seats, it seems unlikely that the Captain got into the LHS.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Never writed the contrary 
Just writed (also in the BEA report) that the pilot aged 32 years not detained a ATPL
The question is
If AF allow a not ATPL pilot to be PF when captain is not in the fligtdeck
. 101a. The crew possessed the licenses and ratings required to undertake the flight;
. 102a. The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained in accordance with the regulations;
. 103a. The airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems, except on one of the three radio management panels;
. 104c. The composition of the crew was in accordance with the operator’s procedures;
. 105c. At the time of the event, the weight and balance of the airplane were within the operational limits;
. 106c. At the time of the event, the two co-pilots were seated in the cockpit and the Captain was resting;
. 107c. The Captain returned to the cockpit about 1 min 30 after the disengagement of the autopilot.
. 102a. The airplane possessed a valid Certificate of Airworthiness, and had been maintained in accordance with the regulations;
. 103a. The airplane had taken off from Rio de Janeiro without any known technical problems, except on one of the three radio management panels;
. 104c. The composition of the crew was in accordance with the operator’s procedures;
. 105c. At the time of the event, the weight and balance of the airplane were within the operational limits;
. 106c. At the time of the event, the two co-pilots were seated in the cockpit and the Captain was resting;
. 107c. The Captain returned to the cockpit about 1 min 30 after the disengagement of the autopilot.
Just writed (also in the BEA report) that the pilot aged 32 years not detained a ATPL
The question is
If AF allow a not ATPL pilot to be PF when captain is not in the fligtdeck
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: on a blue balloon
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who was in charge?
I don't think a military force would go into a situation that might become stressful or even panic-stricken, without someone in command.
There is a lot of discussion about PF / PNF, but that's more about who had his hand on the gun.
Can anyone explain who was in charge of the flight deck that night, while the capt was resting?
Please don't say "2 pilots". Was one of them aware that he was minding the store?
There is a lot of discussion about PF / PNF, but that's more about who had his hand on the gun.
Can anyone explain who was in charge of the flight deck that night, while the capt was resting?
Please don't say "2 pilots". Was one of them aware that he was minding the store?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
From the BEA note we can't know who was in charge after the captain departure from the flightdeck
We just know that the captain "assisted" at the briefing between the two other pilots.
Maybe we must check the "AF traditions" (les habitudes de la maison) for know exactly ?
All options are open
Can anyone explain who was in charge of the flight deck that night, while the capt was resting?
Please don't say "2 pilots". Was one of them aware that he was minding the store?
Please don't say "2 pilots". Was one of them aware that he was minding the store?
We just know that the captain "assisted" at the briefing between the two other pilots.
Maybe we must check the "AF traditions" (les habitudes de la maison) for know exactly ?
All options are open