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 16th Aug 2011, 14:55
  #2941 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@RWA - have a look at the traces here:

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/46062...ml#post6643497

There was a misprint in one version of the report, but if you look at the traces from the latest version (link to other thread above), you can see that the large inputs (that we know are coming from the PF) are from the FIRST OFFICER position.

@jcj - The BEA don't give a "stance", they're just giving a literal translation of the words. I'm trying to apply logical thinking to those words. Put it this way - would you give "preventative" advice to a pilot that was the same rank as you unless you thought they might be doing something that didn't seem right? Of course it's "possible" for the aircraft to roll by itself, but wouldn't an instinctive first reaction of the pilot monitoring be to ask the handling pilot if he was responsible for the aircraft trajectory he was seeing?

@franzl, below - You and CONF (and some others) see it one way, I (and some others) see it another. I get tired of being told I'm seeing things like a "computer game" and that I should listen to "real pilots", as though every pilot feels the same way about the Airbus control philosophy (they don't, but to people like CONF those that don't simply don't count). I agree that tactile feedback is a "nice to have", but I don't think it is a necessity - I don't even think it makes things that much safer, especially given that there are far more glaring holes in the cheese far further up the chain. To me it's the "Back to interconnected yokes or bust" crew who are making the unreasonable demands in the face of the fact that it is *not* apparent that the PNF was unaware of what the PF was doing, on top of the fact that UAS incidents have felled aircraft with yokes as well - it is simply not a good situation to be in.

[EDIT : *Here's* the quote of the entire sentence, which CONF helpfully edited :

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate properly, and that a pilot can counteract the inputs of an incapacitated pilot in the other seat if the situation is recognised. Compare that to the old yoke system whereby whoever was the strongest decided the direction of the aircraft, or the more modern yoke in the 767 when opposite inputs cause the elevators to move in opposite directions (as EgyptAir 990 appeared to prove).
I intended to use the words "theoretically" and "can" to distinguish what might be possible from the actual state-of-the-art. I didn't phrase it well, so my apologies. ]

Last edited by DozyWannabe; 17th Aug 2011 at 00:21.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:01
  #2942 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 776
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
DozyWannabe

[quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by CONF iture
And what does it change to the fact that your following statement is plain wrong ?


DozyWannabe
I meant exactly what I said, "theoretically" - meaning that the system may not necessarily behave that way at present, but it would be a small matter to change the functionality (certification would be another matter though). The fact is that sidestick inputs not following priority switch are summed, so a full left deflection on one and a full right deflection on the other would command a roll rate of 0.

I'm not going to be your monkey and go dig documents up, because I don't have the time.
That is cheap, DozyWannabe,
you are gambling with your credit. What your initial statement told the reader was, that dual SS orders would add up and thus double the flightcontrol input. to achieve better performance. See quote below.

Quote DozyWannabe:
Double inputs *are* allowed by the system, but they are summed, meaning that in an emergency situation, the pilots can theoretically command twice normal pitch-and-roll rate in an emergency situation if they co-ordinate
properly
You should know, that statement is wrong, as the sum of the double input is limited to the amount which one SS could achieve alone. When you dont know it, you should not elaborate about it like knowing.

As you stated it there could be an advantage which would not achievable with a conventional layout, but what it really represents can be achieved with an conventional layout as well. Even better, as one can feel the amount of input from the other pilot. So please do not try to sell us apples for potatoes.

Quote:
But the point is, whatever your CVR quotes are, they show one thing :
2 PNF had no idea what PF was doing with its sidestick, at best they were guessing.


Or he could have been looking at his ADI and seeing the path the aircraft was taking (he may even have had FPV enabled prior to Alternate Law).
The stick input does not move the ADI, but the flightcontrols, and those might move the aircraft which would finally show on the ADI. As during this process other influences like turbulence might take place, what you see on the ADI might not tell you the truth of the actual input. Take as an example the ND inputs, they had been quick and too short, with tactile feedback easy recognizable by PNF. Instead he first had to assume that the PF followed his advise and had to wait on the outcome on the ADI. With a tactile feedback he could have caught that mistake and other erratic stick inputs easyly.

We are not talking about a computer game here, we are talking about flying. Please accept that from people who know.

Quote:
And it is dishonnest from you to substitute :
"Above all try to touch the lateral controls as little as possible eh"
by :
"Above all, don't make lateral inputs so large"


Very different meaning !

How so? I can't see how there's a major difference other than a slightly different use of the English idiom. What other lateral controls were in the flight deck that were being moved in an excessive manner at that point in time? None - only the PF's sidestick.
You dont like to see the difference, because you dont like to be prooved wrong. As mentioned before, you are gambling with your credentials, you should think over it.

Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.

The problem is that, like Gretchenfrage, you're coming at this from the preconceived decision that the Airbus control philosophy is bad and less safe than the old yoke, then you try to fit the circumstances of this accident to fit the narrative that you've already arrived at.
The problem is, that this horse is hunted over the place again and again, also by yourself and some others. To create opposition you have to side yourself first, what you and some others are permanently practicing in a way like "i´m on this side, so you with your other understanding of things must be on the other side. That behaviour does not represent an argument, it gets boring.


One final word to Habsheim:

I live 20 km from that place, and the flight shouldn´t have taken place at all. It was and still is a small airfield. There is no reason at all to authorize a flyby over such an uncontrolled strip in 100´altitude with paying passengers behind, but it was intended as good PR for AF and AB and was published as higlight in the local media.

It went wrong and all actions later were motivated by damage control.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 16th Aug 2011 at 15:16.
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:09
  #2943 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Gretchenfrage,

The quoted paragraph bellow links well with the:

"PostedGraph on Techlog AF 447 Thread #5 Post #1862"

which shows - see the Grayed area - that the Automated (a/c computers controlled) move of the THS from -3 to -13 (to max NU position) took place while the Stall Warning was fully and constantly active.

Originally Posted by Gretchenfrage
from Safety Concerns

Here are a few comment and questions from a recent meeting:
...
THS
As I understand, the THS was following the PFs inputs right up to full aft, even though the stall warning was active. On Boeings the stabilizer is inhibited to move further aft when stall speed is reached.
Why can an Airbus THS?....
Safety Concerns,

Originally Posted by Safety Concerns
Your last post confirmed everything I said about analogue pilots and digital a/c

A lot of pilots criticising Airbus are still in analogue mode and wishing for a return to stick shakers and throttle movement. The safety case to go backwards isn't there.
While I think that the analogue versus digital looks like an interesting wording, or catch, I think that its application in this case is in danger of missing a fundamental point, which is the lack of a direct information channel between the pilots, in regards to the positioning/moving of the active stick, which matters regardless if the information is processed in an analogue, or digital fashion.

This information channel can take different shapes, including the feedback, or a screen with a 3D animation of the stick, or a 3D animation of the a/c and its control surfaces, etc....

Despite your analogue post please correct me if I am wrong. The Lufthansa Frankfurt incident of reverse stick input saw a PNF take control without witnessing any stick feedback or looking over to see what PF was doing. He was digitally minded and in tune with the aircraft.The sad fact in most of these accidents but not all is that the pilots are not in tune with the a/c.
The first officer was as analogue, as a pilot can be, or a human being is: his visual sensors, internal neural network, memory and analysis/decision functional blocks, as well as the analogue motions actuators worked perfectly. But he was in tune with the situation, and the "a/c", as you state in your last sentence.
There may well be a case for a different training approach but there is NOT a safety case to change the technology.
Training always matters, but this seems to be a different matter, which is quite simple:

The presence of two pilots in the cockpit has a rich set of reasons, one of which is that one pilot can take over, if something is wrong with the controls, or the actions of the other pilot which is being in control.

For this to work as intended, and efficiently, the pilots must be in sync at any moment, and there MUST be a DIRECT information channel in whatever shape, regarding the status of the stick, which is one of the main elements of entering commands/controls.

The guessing or inferring stick status/position/actions INDIRECTLY from other elements is simply IMO bellow the level of general logic behind the Airbus controls.

In abstract, as several levels of indirection, and translation/conversion in passing information is introducing delays, unreliability, and/or loss of information, a direct information transfer is the better solution for that system.

Last edited by airtren; 17th Aug 2011 at 14:37.
airtren is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:14
  #2944 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.

Sorry to wake some of you up but it hasn't. It has never been safer. I don't remember calls for changes when the 727 stalled NW of New York. You know the one where an analogue aircraft full of AOA indicators, stick and throttle feedback and a whole bunch of stuff to fill the eyes and ears of pilots but the pilots still stalled.

F4 you are only doing the opposite of those who oppose your view. Its no different.

The starting point in any discussion like this should be safety. Not one of you has provided a safety case. You have only posted emotive comments.
Safety Concerns is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:18
  #2945 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RetiredF4

Whilst I agree with some of what you have said in your post, here you say
Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.
I think you are making interpretations as from the BEA Interim report, he may have been making the calls due to the roll he was experiencing and seeing on the PFD.
At 2 h 10 min 16, the PNF said “we’ve lost the speeds then” then ”alternate law protections”.
The airplane’s pitch attitude increased progressively beyond 10 degrees and the plane started to climb. The PF made nose-down control inputs and alternately left and right roll inputs. The vertical speed, which had reached 7,000 ft/min, dropped to 700 ft/min and the roll varied between 12 degrees right and 10 degrees left. The speed displayed on the left side increased sharply to 215 kt (Mach 0.68). The airplane was then at an altitude of about 37,500 ft and the recorded angle of attack was around 4 degrees.
At around 2 h 11 min 45, the Captain re-entered the cockpit. During the following seconds, all of the recorded speeds became invalid and the stall warning stopped.
The altitude was then about 35,000 ft, the angle of attack exceeded 40 degrees and the vertical speed was about -10 000 ft/min. The airplane’s pitch attitude did not exceed 15 degrees and the engines’ N1’s were close to 100%. The airplane was subject to roll oscillations that sometimes reached 40 degrees. The PF made an input on the side-stick to the left and nose-up stops, which lasted about 30 seconds.
iceman50 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:22
  #2946 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RWA

Pity you did not quote the rest of my comment about the design change you require, there is no difference in which hand you use to fly the A/C from the LHS or RHS be it a Boeing or an Airbus,so your design change is NOT required. Apologies but that is not thinking outside the box!
iceman50 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:34
  #2947 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 71
Posts: 776
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Safety Concerns

I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.
It is not mine. But in my time we looked at the matter and adressed safety issues wether we lost one aircraft in 10 years or 5. If you get lazy and look at an accident as an acceptable and necessary loss, you will loose more.


F4 you are only doing the opposite of those who oppose your view. Its no different.
As you might have observed, i´m mostly reading. But when things are being posted wrong /like adding up dual SS input and selling that as advantage and at some other occasions i feel the need to contribute. I try not to side with AB or Boing or Fokker or any other manufacturer, i dont care who is building the aircraft. I do exactly what you challenge, its for safety, as my job with the airforce as chief standeval of a wing brought it with.

The starting point in any discussion like this should be safety. Not one of you has provided a safety case. You have only posted emotive comments.
That is your point of view, but you have no emotive motivation?

iceman50

RetiredF4

Whilst I agree with some of what you have said in your post, here you say
Quote:
Your statement suggests, that the PNF observed large SS inputs in the roll channel and tells the PF to make them smaller,

whereas in reality PNF adresses the PF to touch the lateral controls (in this case those would be ailerons and rudder) as little as possible, meaning to focus on other important things like pitch. That is quite different to your altered terminology.

I think you are making interpretations as from the BEA Interim report, he may have been making the calls due to the roll he was experiencing and seeing on the PFD.
You are correct, it is my personal conclusion (like DozyWannabe might have his own), i should have told so. IMHO it makes sense though, PNF primary concern was pitch and altitude and he was looking for the reason why PF was falling way behind this task. And i think we agree that PF was spending too much time with lateral control.

Finally we dont know for sure.

franzl

Last edited by RetiredF4; 16th Aug 2011 at 15:37. Reason: correcting PF to PNF
RetiredF4 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 15:46
  #2948 (permalink)  
RWA
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quoting iceman50:-

".....there is no difference in which hand you use to fly the A/C from the LHS or RHS be it a Boeing or an Airbus,so your design change is NOT required."

Sincerely hope we don't fall out, mate. But there clearly IS a difference.

In a conventional 'transport category' aeroplane you will normally have both hands on the yoke. You can take either hand off, to attend to other things if needed - but both hands will be 'in practice.'

In the sort of small stuff I used to fly, the same applied - especially if the sticks for both pilots were between the knees.

In an Airbus, you HAVE to 'work the stick' with whichever hand is on the side of the sidestick. Normally the left hand if you're the captain, the right hand if you're what we used to call the 'co-pilot.' Except, of course, that a lot of the stuff amateurs like me flew had the two cockpits 'in line' rather than side-by-side.......

Sorry, just in terms of flying, I STILL can't see why Airbus put the sidesticks literally 'one side or the other,' rather than between the knees.

As I implied earlier, it seems to me to be a considerable (and, as far as I can see, totally unnecessary) change from a century-long history of 'common controls'?
RWA is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:11
  #2949 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RWA

Sincerely hope we don't fall out, mate. But there clearly IS a difference.

In a conventional 'transport category' aeroplane you will normally have both hands on the yoke. You can take either hand off, to attend to other things if needed - but both hands will be 'in practice.'
Sorry, but we will have to fall out as you are wrong. I have actually flown both manufacturers, Boeing B757 / B767 and presently fly the Airbus A340 / A330, you have NOT. If you are "manually" flying your right hand, if you are in the LHS, will be on the thrust levers!! We now have hydraulic systems and do not need the leverage of two hands on the "yoke"!
iceman50 is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:17
  #2950 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: VA, USA
Age: 58
Posts: 578
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Sorry, just in terms of flying, I STILL can't see why Airbus put the sidesticks literally 'one side or the other,' rather than between the knees.
Assuming you are sitting at a desk, place your right hand directly in front of you, centered on your body. Unless you are deformed, your arm will be at nearly 45 degrees relative to your chest line. Tip your hand forward/back, turn it side to side.... get it? Every axis is 45 degrees off what would be the nose of the (imaginary) aircraft.

Now take your arm and position it at the most natural position on the desk to your right side, probably just about where your mouse sits.... look, everything is now more or less orthogonal with the imaginary aircraft.

Repeat with your left hand... in the center position the axis are now 90 degrees offset from before - i.e. to pulling back on the stick is now operating in an entirely different direction than it was with the right hand...

Now you can argue that the central joystick should be oriented fore-aft/left-right on axis with the aircraft, but now you are inducing a very painful twist to either arm, and the stick movement is no longer in-line with any of the arms natural axis.

That is why. Airbus are not dumb.
GarageYears is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:45
  #2951 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cool

Hi,

I am sorry but this is now becoming stupid. Reading some comments here you would think aviation safety has just taken a nose dive.
The fact is that the aviation safety will (or be feel) taking a nose dive .. when pilots are not good enough for cope with emergency situations.
In the case of AF477 .. my feeling is that the pilots were maybe good .. but not good enough for cope with a unusual ? (the UAS is not a new event BTW) situation
jcjeant is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:57
  #2952 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GarageYears
Repeat with your left hand...
I tried.
But unfortunately there was a glass of whiskey in the left-hand location.....

Good description, thanks .... and personally I think the 'left/right' discussion is vastly overdone.

Maybe there is a very small part of the population that is really severely "left-hand-challenged".
But if so, would they ever have gotten as far as the RH seat of an AB?
They would have needed to show their competence in a LH seat as well.
ChristiaanJ is offline  
Old 16th Aug 2011, 16:57
  #2953 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: UK
Age: 41
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
feedback with sidestick

What about having a screen or even better a small portion on the HUD (they are introduced slowly) that shows a rectangule divided in 4 quadrants with a dot showing where the stick position is. Add a RH/LH indication for where the input comes from and a 'Dual Input' flashing indication when there is dual input...

Something similar with what fighter aircraft/helicopters have in the targeting pods' screen to show where the sensor is looking compared to foward.

(I'm not a pilot)
Dimitris is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:12
  #2954 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I hope you'll all forgive me for sticking with this angle for a moment.

Would the PNF and Captain have had a better grasp of the situation had they SEEN a yoke held full 'nose up' ie with the PF holding the yoke right back, probably with both hands!?

I think...Yes.

Someone would have said 'push FFS!'

With the sidestick (and I know it works great on single seaters) this was plainly FAR from obvious.


A second point re flying hours. I've seen 20,000 hours as the experience on the FD mentioned a few times. 19,950 of that was prolly playing sudoku (or whatever long haul guys do) while the AP flew and the FMS nav'd.

At my company we have to show one 3degree landing a month (steep apps normal) and there's also recency for Autoland.

Why not recency for visuals and hand flying? Why not for raw data too?

God knows we could all do with it.

These guys were very poorly prepped for their hour. And when the hour arrived............

Automation makes you (and me) lazy.

It's the new killer.
 
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:23
  #2955 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Now you can argue that the central joystick should be oriented fore-aft/left-right on axis with the aircraft, but now you are inducing a very painful twist to either arm, and the stick movement is no longer in-line with any of the arms natural axis.
Except that your analysis is not borne out in reality...

I have flown several aircraft with central control sticks from Cubs and similar light airplanes to fighter jets. I have also flown the AH-1W Cobra helicopter with a right-side control stick that moved (yes, actually MOVED) in the normal fore-aft and left-right axes. NONE of those were even remotely "painful." All of them fell naturally to hand.

While a ergonomically shaped and positioned stick grip is better than a straight stick like the Cub's, even the straight stick poses no problems for translating the arm/hand's 45 deg orientation to the 90 deg orientation of the control movement. The reason is that the stick is anchored, not free-floating, and the arm/wrist/hand readily adapts to the control movements. The brain has no problem translating.
Intruder is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:27
  #2956 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BarbiesBoyfriend
Would the PNF and Captain have had a better grasp of the situation had they SEEN a yoke held full 'nose up' ie with the PF holding the yoke right back, probably with both hands!?

I think...Yes.

Someone would have said 'push FFS!'
So why didn't the NWA 727 crew react that way back in the '60s? Why didn't the Birgenair 757 F/O do the same? They had yokes - I think the issue is more complex than that.

Automation makes you (and me) lazy.
So use your associations and unions to get the industry to accept more hand-flying, either on the line or off! If they argue that it's too expensive, just point out what this incident is likely to cost Air France in monetary terms, to say nothing of prestige and reputation.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:41
  #2957 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
BBF is exactly correct, and his points suffer no loss of importance because other accidents turned out differently.

Trench warfare. Call a truce.

The commonality seen in recent accidents irrespective of type, Line, or Pilotage is how simple and horrible they appear in retrospect.

The part still that gets my goat is the apparent nonchalance of those doing the retrospecting. And the investigating, and the "improving".

None of these were "flukey". Bizarre confluence of highly improbable vectors? No, not at all. Straightforward lapses in Maintenance, engineering, training, rostering, and COMPLACENCY.

So one is left with hope alone. Not even Trust. Why Trust? Trust whom?

The tooth Fairy?
Lyman is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:48
  #2958 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SLF, living somewhere East in the West
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Couldn't airbus come up with a design that lets you swing the sidestick either in front of you or keep it where you prefer on the side? Should be not too hard to do, after all I can adjust steering wheels in cars also (though up/down), and the concept that everything is electronic should make that implementation even easier...
grimmrad is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 00:52
  #2959 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane, Oz
Age: 82
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On sidesticks generally

HarryMann, back in the previous thread at 13th Aug 2011, 10:27, #1961, and later, again expressed his concerns about the AB side stick, and presumably side sticks in general. I agree with his other points, esp. the concern that the primary flight parameter, AoA, is very, very rarely instrumented. On sidesticks, no.

Harry, I graduated after other stuff to the Victa Airtourer, #2 pupil on #1 off the line, and later instructed on it. A side stick per se is *never a problem (& you do *not have to shove a aircraft physically 'round the sky if it’s controls are well designed.) In fact, given my druthers, I'd take a side stick any day, for precision.

IMHO the control problem, and IMexperience on AB, is the quite misguided removal of the tactile and physiological feedback that is so fundamental to the driver in the quite superb working environment of the Porsche designed AB cockpit.

The fundamental problem is that there is zero interconnectedness between the sidesticks, (even out of sight to the other pilot), and this borders on the criminal stupidity. There should at very least be a panic button on the stick which would put up the other’s stick position on the AH,PFI,ADI,PFD (choose one) like any computer game. When I was young and new to types I would ask the skipper if he minded my following through, and would place my little finger on the underside of the yoke. I then quickly knew *exactly what inputs were executed to achieve the required ‘product placement’ on that A/c.

That the throttle levers do not move to echo the fuel flow demand is (IMHO) another piece of almost criminal engineering ignorance and arrogance. So easy to incorporate that it implies a deliberate attempt to remove the pilot from the loop. The non-pilot’s dream of having control of an aircraft?

That the standby instruments are also computer driven is just the acid on the cake. And no, I’m not a recidivist, in fact a long time computer nerd. It freaked me when I first moved to the AB, the way various computers would crash and need repeated rebooting (‘resetting’) pre-departure in the *early 320. I trust they’ve got that right by now.

I've previously mentioned here about a total non-flags freeze-up of both non-steam-driven gauges early in my airline career, which needed a basic-instruments recovery at night while the skipper was stuffing fuses back in, after trying to fix the autopilot. Acutely aware all my years of what can happen, I made a point of flying limited panel for a while on a leg a couple of times a month to keep my hand in (all the obvious precautions, obviously) until the fast jet -- I doubt it can be done successfully -- but would then fly on the standby a.h. in lieu of limited panel.

I also hand-flew across continents at night three times when the A/P was U/S after departure, but when solid curfews meant that the complications would be horrendous -- because I maintained the touch. I hear the howl of horror now. Believe me, having the pilot *totally in the loop is the epitome of safety! I’ve had a check captain who didn’t comprehend a trimmed A/c, and demanded the yoke be grimly clutched at all times. (Incidentally, the phugoid oscillation frequency of a 727-200 is 20 seconds, and the divergence +/- 95’. Trim it, and it sits on height +/- 100’ with no intervention. (YMwillV on other type’s.)

None of this style of activity was ever suggested officially nor was there a sim exercise, but it instilled a huge sense of security, not just in me.

Early in one of these threads I stated that, in light of the above (too personal) ramble, & given my background (Gums’ ‘touch’), and my time on AB, that there was no way that I could have been able to fly AF447 in the situation they put themselves/found themselves in.

So forget sidestick fears, Harry. It’s the total lack of tactile controls feedback to the driver, and of awareness of what the other person is doing, which lays an unacceptable demand on the visual and computational ability of the brain. Thinking about it, has there been any research published on the maximum amount of data a person can process successfully process before the *brain stalls?

The situation that has so obsessed us here was IMHO the AB computer game crashing after a sensor failure, and was just as incomprehensible to the crew. It is why I was glad to retire from the beautifully built and so elegant AB, anticipating connector corrosion implications in 18-20 year-old aircraft, and now grieve for the innocents who have suffered.

(Retires to flame-proof bomb shelter for a week )
JenCluse is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2011, 01:01
  #2960 (permalink)  
BarbiesBoyfriend
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Dozy.

Re your point 1. yep, having a yoke didn't save them. Perhaps these two F/Os might have been saved by the intervention of their Captain though, if he could have quickly grasped what was occurring?

He would have grasped it more clearly if he could have SEEN what inputs PF was making.

Agree?

Dozy.

Re my point about the autos making us lazy.

I guess you agree.

The less you fly, the less you CAN fly.

If you rarely fly, your skills diminish.

If you NEVER fly (and where I work the AP goes in at 1000 agl and stays in til final) you'll soon not be a pilot at all.

Surely 'piloting skills' ought to be valued in an aircraft pilot?

No.

Sometimes, as I'm driving to work, I think...'why am I flying this thing? what makes me the pilot instead of, say, an engineer- or that guy who taught me 'flat-panel'?


Or indeed, any guy who can wrestle the airacraft up to AP min engagement height!

What right do I have to call myself the 'grand fromage' pilot?

Last edited by BarbiesBoyfriend; 17th Aug 2011 at 01:38.
 

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.