AF447 wreckage found
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole idea of the sim is it will do exactly what the plane would in the real world....
I am sure you are correct, and with my 0 vs. your 26K hours of flight SIM who am I to argue, but the Airbus and Boeing actual test pilots appear to have a very different point of view.
USE OF SIMULATORS
We manufacturers were very concerned over the types of manoeuvres being flown in simulators and the conclusions that were being drawn from them. Simulators, like any computer system, are only as good as the data that goes into them. That means the data package that is given to the simulator manufacturer. And we test pilors do not deliberately lose control of our aircraft just to get data for the simulator. And even when that happens, one isolated incident does not provide much information because of the very complicated equations that govern dynamic manoeuvres involving non
linear aerodynamic and inertia effects.
The complete data package includes a part that is drawn from actual flight tests, a part that uses wind tunnel data, and the rest which is pure extrapolation. If should be obvious that conclusions about aircraft behaviour can only be drawn from the parts of the flight envelope that are based on hard data. This in fact means being nol far from the centre of the flight envelope; the pari that is used in normal service. It does not cover the edges of the envelope. I should also add that most of the data actually collected in flight is from quasi-static manoeuvres. Thus, dynamic manoeuvring is not very well represented.
We manufacturers were very concerned over the types of manoeuvres being flown in simulators and the conclusions that were being drawn from them. Simulators, like any computer system, are only as good as the data that goes into them. That means the data package that is given to the simulator manufacturer. And we test pilors do not deliberately lose control of our aircraft just to get data for the simulator. And even when that happens, one isolated incident does not provide much information because of the very complicated equations that govern dynamic manoeuvres involving non
linear aerodynamic and inertia effects.
The complete data package includes a part that is drawn from actual flight tests, a part that uses wind tunnel data, and the rest which is pure extrapolation. If should be obvious that conclusions about aircraft behaviour can only be drawn from the parts of the flight envelope that are based on hard data. This in fact means being nol far from the centre of the flight envelope; the pari that is used in normal service. It does not cover the edges of the envelope. I should also add that most of the data actually collected in flight is from quasi-static manoeuvres. Thus, dynamic manoeuvring is not very well represented.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belfast
Age: 46
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've had an opportunity to discuss this with a friend of mine who flys military A330s. He hasn't had a chance to read the report, but when I queried him on the pilot's maintenance of a nose-up attitude, his only explanation was that they believed they were in an over-speed situation, rather than a stall.
Incidently, I flew from London to Sydney on A340s several days ago, and I couldn't help but imagine the aircraft falling from our cruise in little over 3 minutes! It was the first time I've EVER felt uncomfortable on an aircraft. This should never have happened, and the boffins who design these modern marvels need to make sure the pilots retain the authority and ability to recover an aircraft in distress.
Someone else mentioned that a 747 would 'roll over and do what you want it to' in such a situation. I can't comment on the differences between the two manufacturers, but it would appear to me from various comments I've read that Airbus needs to incorporate some slightly more pilot-intuitive aspects to the way the aircraft relates to its crew.
As a pilot who trained in the military, I'm still shocked and dismayed by the chain of events that unfolded.
Incidently, I flew from London to Sydney on A340s several days ago, and I couldn't help but imagine the aircraft falling from our cruise in little over 3 minutes! It was the first time I've EVER felt uncomfortable on an aircraft. This should never have happened, and the boffins who design these modern marvels need to make sure the pilots retain the authority and ability to recover an aircraft in distress.
Someone else mentioned that a 747 would 'roll over and do what you want it to' in such a situation. I can't comment on the differences between the two manufacturers, but it would appear to me from various comments I've read that Airbus needs to incorporate some slightly more pilot-intuitive aspects to the way the aircraft relates to its crew.
As a pilot who trained in the military, I'm still shocked and dismayed by the chain of events that unfolded.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poit, the Airbus people will say you are trying to send technology back 25 years so you must adjust to total automation. Pilots now manage autopilots and the computer because it can do it better most of the time. Handflying skills are no longer required.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belfast
Age: 46
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers44: Clearly hand-flying skills ARE still required, as this accident tragically illustrates. Hence my point. Sure, computers can do a better job, but when they decide to pack it in (as happened in this case) the pilots need to have a pilot friendly and intuitive aircraft to fly. A combination, therefore, between the highly advanced, and old-school simplicity.
WilyB: LOL. This accident (and several others...such as the QANTAS A380) has made me question that pilots are system operators, and no longer aviators. Thankfully the QANTAS event ended without any casualties, but it could have quite easily gone in another and far more horrific direction.
These things never happened in the old, classic 747's. Maybe it wasn't so bad 25 years ago Bubbers!
WilyB: LOL. This accident (and several others...such as the QANTAS A380) has made me question that pilots are system operators, and no longer aviators. Thankfully the QANTAS event ended without any casualties, but it could have quite easily gone in another and far more horrific direction.
These things never happened in the old, classic 747's. Maybe it wasn't so bad 25 years ago Bubbers!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bubbers44
We know you despise Airbus and do not understand it, so please no more useless posts.
Captdaddy
Do not know what kind of simulator you were flying but when I taught unusual attitudes the instruments never went to big red crosses. Ever heard of controlled precession, because you can see it in the simulators I have "flown".
BASIL's CUT and PASTE
The post that was copied and pasted from the "one of the most experienced A330 pilots in the world". A lot of what he has said is absolute rubbish and you would not think it came from such an "experienced A330 pliot", e.g. you would not want to follow the FD's if you were in AF447 position as it would be giving erroneous information. Altitude is the least of your concerns at that point in time, ATTITUDE and POWER are the life savers. If you have stalled, you MUST unstall the wing and add power progressively to be able to counteract any pitch up due to the low slung engines. As for the thrust going to climb power it freezes at the setting just prior to disconnect, with the Thrust Lock function. The non-moving thrust levers are NOT an issue. If you disconnect the A/THR you match the blue 'donuts" then disconnect, in the AF case the thrust levers could have been left in the detent and moved to the correct power setting when required. Even if it went to climb thrust there would not be a huge increase in thrust and you certainly would not stall. As for never being trained in stalling, you never train to stall in the simulator, but most regulators require approach to the stall recovery training as part of the Type rating requirements. But there again what would I know only been flying the Airbus A330/A340 since 1996 and for those that wonder flew 757/767 for 6 years before that, so seen both manufactures!
We know you despise Airbus and do not understand it, so please no more useless posts.
Captdaddy
Do not know what kind of simulator you were flying but when I taught unusual attitudes the instruments never went to big red crosses. Ever heard of controlled precession, because you can see it in the simulators I have "flown".
BASIL's CUT and PASTE
The post that was copied and pasted from the "one of the most experienced A330 pilots in the world". A lot of what he has said is absolute rubbish and you would not think it came from such an "experienced A330 pliot", e.g. you would not want to follow the FD's if you were in AF447 position as it would be giving erroneous information. Altitude is the least of your concerns at that point in time, ATTITUDE and POWER are the life savers. If you have stalled, you MUST unstall the wing and add power progressively to be able to counteract any pitch up due to the low slung engines. As for the thrust going to climb power it freezes at the setting just prior to disconnect, with the Thrust Lock function. The non-moving thrust levers are NOT an issue. If you disconnect the A/THR you match the blue 'donuts" then disconnect, in the AF case the thrust levers could have been left in the detent and moved to the correct power setting when required. Even if it went to climb thrust there would not be a huge increase in thrust and you certainly would not stall. As for never being trained in stalling, you never train to stall in the simulator, but most regulators require approach to the stall recovery training as part of the Type rating requirements. But there again what would I know only been flying the Airbus A330/A340 since 1996 and for those that wonder flew 757/767 for 6 years before that, so seen both manufactures!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belfast
Age: 46
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman, given your experience with both major manufacturers, do you have a theory as to what went wrong on this occasion? I'm not being sarcastic in asking that, just want the benefit of someone who's got experience with these aircraft.
Is there a difference between Airbus and Boeing (you might not want to answer that)?
Is there a difference between Airbus and Boeing (you might not want to answer that)?
I asked a question earlier but it was one of several and did not get answered with the others.
The glass indicates when the ASI is unreliable and the autopilot disengages as its inputs don't agree.
Is there anything that sounds etc to say that the ASI has become reliable again? Would it be possible for pilots, perceiving the ASIs to be intitially wrong to continue to do so to the exclusion of paying attention to attitude?
Just how tight is coffin corner at FL 380?
The glass indicates when the ASI is unreliable and the autopilot disengages as its inputs don't agree.
Is there anything that sounds etc to say that the ASI has become reliable again? Would it be possible for pilots, perceiving the ASIs to be intitially wrong to continue to do so to the exclusion of paying attention to attitude?
Just how tight is coffin corner at FL 380?
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
These things never happened in the old, classic 747's
Air India 747
KAL 747
Air China 747
As for the thrust going to climb power it freezes at the setting just prior to disconnect, with the Thrust Lock function
...and the boffins who design these modern marvels need to make sure the pilots retain the authority and ability to recover an aircraft in distress.
I am not overly for or against the Airbus v Boeing philosphy - I have flown both. But until we get a full analysis from the BEA, it is hard to see whether the FBW "laws" were a (significant) factor.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCalif
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Airplane with Control Problem
About ten years ago, the Roll Channel went to sleep on an Evergreen 747-1 cargo plane one night over Canada enroute KJFK-KANC. It was well beyond 30 degrees roll when the pilot caught it. They went something like 1.06 M in the recovery.
SperryWell could find nothing wrong with the roll channel, so it became a boat anchor. EV installed 30 degree bank limit alarms in the fleet after that.
SperryWell could find nothing wrong with the roll channel, so it became a boat anchor. EV installed 30 degree bank limit alarms in the fleet after that.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Iceman 50
Agree, Iceman50. I wonder, though, whether that procedure (attitude first, then power) was 'in force' at the time of AF447? I ask because I recall reading this a while back - a 'new' approach (well, actually, the 'old' one) published by Airbus in 2010, long after the AF447 accident? According to the poster, and many of those who replied to him, previous advice was along the lines of 'full power and seek to maintain assigned altitude'?
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/41537...procedure.html
Thanks for that information. Obviously you couldn't have pilots in training practise actual stalls in a real transport category aircraft, but up to now I'd been assuming that some sort of 'simulated stall' could be practised in the simulator.
So, on the face of it, pilots can only be taught 'stall avoidance,' and there's no way to train them in actual 'stall recovery' - except, of course, that they'll have practised it in light aircraft in their early flying lessons?
Altitude is the least of your concerns at that point in time, ATTITUDE and POWER are the life savers. If you have stalled, you MUST unstall the wing and add power progressively to be able to counteract any pitch up due to the low slung engines.
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/41537...procedure.html
As for never being trained in stalling, you never train to stall in the simulator, but most regulators require approach to the stall recovery training as part of the Type rating requirements.
So, on the face of it, pilots can only be taught 'stall avoidance,' and there's no way to train them in actual 'stall recovery' - except, of course, that they'll have practised it in light aircraft in their early flying lessons?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Preferably on terra firma.
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
studi,
With respect, read the report.
The protections were not available because the aeroplane had reverted to Alternate Law 2. That means that the pilot is fully responsible for the aeroplane's course except load factor limitations which are still applied.
The A/P and A/TH failed at the moment that the probes froze over and the airspeed readings became unreliable.
The F/O took control.
The F/O made persistent nose-up inputs - not the autopilot.
I reiterate that now the mystery is why he made those inputs.
Any alternative discussion on this thread or any other is quite frankly, irrelevant.
With respect, read the report.
The protections were not available because the aeroplane had reverted to Alternate Law 2. That means that the pilot is fully responsible for the aeroplane's course except load factor limitations which are still applied.
The A/P and A/TH failed at the moment that the probes froze over and the airspeed readings became unreliable.
The F/O took control.
The F/O made persistent nose-up inputs - not the autopilot.
I reiterate that now the mystery is why he made those inputs.
Any alternative discussion on this thread or any other is quite frankly, irrelevant.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Poit
I have my own theory but it will stay that until the report is out, no point in posting it here as it would be speculation.
There are differences between Boeing and Airbus philosophy and on both there are some good things and some not so good things. The whole point is you have to "learn" the aircraft you are flying and not continually think back to previous types, didn't do that on a ......... (insert A/C type here). That's what we as "pilots" are supposed to do. Any A/C with the AP / A/THR (Autothrottle) off are still aircraft and subject to the same rules of flight as your small cessna or chipmunk.
RWA
It was not just Airbus that re-stated the "new / old" stall procedure, Boeing did as well. I believe that Boeing, Airbus, other manufacturers and the regulators got together and the "new/old" procedures were emphasised. This was after events like Turkish in AMS (with moving throttles) and Colgan at Buffalo. The same thing happened when the revised procedures for Smoke and Fumes were changed a couple years ago. Manufactures and regulators assessing the most likely causes of Smoke and Fumes and devising a checklist priority, with reminders that an off field landing may be required should the fire escalate.
aterpster
Good memories beat me to it!
I have my own theory but it will stay that until the report is out, no point in posting it here as it would be speculation.
There are differences between Boeing and Airbus philosophy and on both there are some good things and some not so good things. The whole point is you have to "learn" the aircraft you are flying and not continually think back to previous types, didn't do that on a ......... (insert A/C type here). That's what we as "pilots" are supposed to do. Any A/C with the AP / A/THR (Autothrottle) off are still aircraft and subject to the same rules of flight as your small cessna or chipmunk.
RWA
It was not just Airbus that re-stated the "new / old" stall procedure, Boeing did as well. I believe that Boeing, Airbus, other manufacturers and the regulators got together and the "new/old" procedures were emphasised. This was after events like Turkish in AMS (with moving throttles) and Colgan at Buffalo. The same thing happened when the revised procedures for Smoke and Fumes were changed a couple years ago. Manufactures and regulators assessing the most likely causes of Smoke and Fumes and devising a checklist priority, with reminders that an off field landing may be required should the fire escalate.
aterpster
Good memories beat me to it!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
"Sarcastic mode open"
What a great contribution from a A330/A340 expert
"Sarcastic mode closed"
But of course it's your right to have an opinion and not post it !
I wonder why you post here in the first place ? (Rumours and news)
BTW Bubbers44 have also the right to have an opinion (despise Airbus) .. and he post it.
Why fallen in love with a girl you don't like ?
I have my own theory but it will stay that until the report is out, no point in posting it here as it would be speculation.
What a great contribution from a A330/A340 expert
"Sarcastic mode closed"
But of course it's your right to have an opinion and not post it !
I wonder why you post here in the first place ? (Rumours and news)
BTW Bubbers44 have also the right to have an opinion (despise Airbus) .. and he post it.
Why fallen in love with a girl you don't like ?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant
I have not posted my opinion as I / we do not have all the facts.
I posted as I am fed up with the total nonsense that is sometimes spouted and do not want to add to the "speculation / Airbus bashing frenzy".
Just in case you are still unsure, I get great pleasure flying the A330 / A340 and do not wish to return to Mr Boeing. A blue cockpit is so much nicer than brown!
Yes, Bubbers has a right to an opinion but the endless Airbus sniping is boring and does not bring anything to the debate.
I have not posted my opinion as I / we do not have all the facts.
I posted as I am fed up with the total nonsense that is sometimes spouted and do not want to add to the "speculation / Airbus bashing frenzy".
Just in case you are still unsure, I get great pleasure flying the A330 / A340 and do not wish to return to Mr Boeing. A blue cockpit is so much nicer than brown!
Yes, Bubbers has a right to an opinion but the endless Airbus sniping is boring and does not bring anything to the debate.
iceman50,
Your comment, for which thanks, is the reason why I posted that reference.
With a personal Airbus total of half an hour in the A320 sim I'd no idea whether the writer was talking sense or not.
I think that this is a great thread and, when I next pax in a 'Bus, I hope that the drivers have read it.
Your comment, for which thanks, is the reason why I posted that reference.
With a personal Airbus total of half an hour in the A320 sim I'd no idea whether the writer was talking sense or not.
I think that this is a great thread and, when I next pax in a 'Bus, I hope that the drivers have read it.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just in case you are still unsure, I get great pleasure flying the A330 / A340 and do not wish to return to Mr Boeing
There are some very open-minded Airbus pilots on this thread who accept and acknowledge the best and the worst of the aircraft they fly.Post 1491 confirms what I have always believed about this aircraft.I say "believed" because having never flown it(and never will) I must step carefully having been burned on a previous thread.
NOD's reference to Air China upset(and others) is not so open-minded and unbiased if hes attempting to use it to compare the two designs.The Air China upset was a clear case of pilot error.The culprit was the pilot.We dont know yet to what extent(if any) system design played a part in 447.The jury is out.The BEA is that jury and it will be interesting to see if they can remain totally impartial and unbiased.I doubt it but lets wait and see.