AF447 Thread No. 3
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
JD_EE
Methink you don't read this or forget it when answered
Do you agree ?
JD_EE
jcjeant, it may be appropriate to define how you are using fault.
If the PF caused the crash it does not automatically follow that "He is at fault."
Why did he do what he did? If we isolate a training deficiency, a software deficiency, or some other deficiency then while the PF may have caused it he is not at fault for it.
If the PF caused the crash it does not automatically follow that "He is at fault."
Why did he do what he did? If we isolate a training deficiency, a software deficiency, or some other deficiency then while the PF may have caused it he is not at fault for it.
But I'm sure it will be not so straight ... and certainly it will be recommendations about the pilots and airline (training SOP .. etc...) and recommendations for the constructor(s) and recommendations for the regulators
Seem's to me a usual and honest scenario and it will be no different for the AF447 case.
So .. it will be also many food for the court of justice
Nobody will go out white from this accident.
Seem's to me a usual and honest scenario and it will be no different for the AF447 case.
So .. it will be also many food for the court of justice
Nobody will go out white from this accident.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right here inside my head
Age: 65
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With absolutely all the due respect I can muster... I think, Martin M, as a Microsoft ONLY "pilot" ... it's probably time you let folks who know a thing or two, do the talking. I suspect when some of the posters here realize you've misled them in your "current a/c- A330-A340", and actually only had your MS flt sim time, they might be rather disappointed.
Originally Posted by MartinM
Highspeed stall at FL350
Mach buffet is not stall!
As for the your colleague's theory, IAW Sturgeon's law, it's as valid as at least 90% of theories regarding AF447 put forward on the PPRuNe.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf50
Since we don't know what he was seeing, and apparently can't from the way FDR data is recorded ... how can one get to the root cause of his control inputs?
Originally Posted by @ CLandestino
By sitting on one's hands and refraining from extensive theorizing until such time when BEA releases DFDR plots and CVR transcript. From DFDR data we can 99.99% reliably conclude what were the indications in the cockpit. 0.01% refers to freak CRT (or LCD) failure undetected by ECAM.
Are we reading the same thread? We are on its third bundle of posts.
What is clear is that the BEA has on their record from the FDR the indications for the Left Seat pilot, but not for the Right Seat pilot.
The question I asked is
What was the PF seeing?
It is more likely that the CVR will give more clues.
Unless what has been posted is wrong, the FDR does not record what was on his display.
But that isn't even what I am asking, Clandestino.
You spend much time flying?
I think so.
You familiar with a scan pattern?
I think so.
You use one?
I think so.
You spend much time teaching people how to fly?
I don't know if you have, but I have.
Try your dismissive line elsewhere.
What the pilot flying was seeing is driven by his scan.
You assume that his displays matched the Left Seat displays. Fine.
Cheers.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 1st Jun 2011 at 21:30.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: I am where I am and that's all where I am.
Posts: 660
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcjeant - I'm trying to avoid any assignment of fault at the moment. But, after oscillating around a fair amount I'm close to convinced the three cockpit crewmembers will come out clean in any rational world. It's looking like they followed their "programming" to the point of utter confusion. It's hard to blame them for not breaking out of the strictures of their training to solve the problem.
Aside from that I think there may be a system design problem and most likely there may be a training error. (This latter point has already been tacitly admitted with the revised recovery procedures.)
(wry chuckle) Reading the above some of the AirBus related leaks make a lot of sense. They don't have to do anything because it was already done. And the some of the software design issue has a training workaround. (The lack of a fully time air flow based AoA reading in the cockpit is confusing if AoA and thrust are the real recovery for transient icing issues.)
Aside from that I think there may be a system design problem and most likely there may be a training error. (This latter point has already been tacitly admitted with the revised recovery procedures.)
(wry chuckle) Reading the above some of the AirBus related leaks make a lot of sense. They don't have to do anything because it was already done. And the some of the software design issue has a training workaround. (The lack of a fully time air flow based AoA reading in the cockpit is confusing if AoA and thrust are the real recovery for transient icing issues.)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Germany
Age: 47
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe- but of course like everything other its just a shot in the dark, the pilot was still believing in the protection systems and an not stallable aircraft and tried a recovery similar to a wind shear on an airbus- full upstick and toga ,maybe truly believing he is in a massive downdraft and not a stall.
why he initially climbed and tried not not keep power and pitch constant when he lost the indications will be a mysterium.
on a other hand we have to consider that discussing it is something other than finding itself in a big thunderstorm, when one system after another quits, being in live danger. maybe also he just quit mentally and his inputs were instinctive without thinking. who knows.
best regards
why he initially climbed and tried not not keep power and pitch constant when he lost the indications will be a mysterium.
on a other hand we have to consider that discussing it is something other than finding itself in a big thunderstorm, when one system after another quits, being in live danger. maybe also he just quit mentally and his inputs were instinctive without thinking. who knows.
best regards
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by SaturnV
Tim Vasquez has updated his meteorological analysis, dated June 1, 2011.
Air France 447 - AFR447 - A detailed meteorological analysis - Satellite and weather data
Tim Vasquez has updated his meteorological analysis, dated June 1, 2011.
Air France 447 - AFR447 - A detailed meteorological analysis - Satellite and weather data
The flight was suspected to be within areas of showers and precipitation up until the time of impact, and the descent below FL250 into the critical -10 to -20 deg C zone probably involved some degree of clear icing on control surfaces, though it is uncertain whether this affected recovery of the aircraft, especially due to the short accumulation time that would be involved.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 330
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm starting to mumble to myself we haven't a clue where either of the two co-pilots was sitting.
JD-EE
Yeah, no kidding. That BEA Update is too ambiguous for anybody to come to a conclusion. The one thing we do know is that the PF on takeoff from Rio was one of the FO's. I don't see any problem with the junior FO doing the TO with the captain in the LHS.
Wiggy writes
The captain woke the other (or second) co-pilot by some means and then commented to the junior pilot in the RHS that:"he's going to take my place". i.e. the senior P2 simply replaced the captain in the Left hand seat
but that's all speculation. Who was the "other (or second) co-pilot"? We don't know whom the captain was addressing or who he meant by "he's going to take my place".
No doubt all (or most of it) will be revealed in due course. Still, it's strange - well, maybe not so strange - that the print media all proclaimed the "baby pilot" to have been PF.
JD-EE
Yeah, no kidding. That BEA Update is too ambiguous for anybody to come to a conclusion. The one thing we do know is that the PF on takeoff from Rio was one of the FO's. I don't see any problem with the junior FO doing the TO with the captain in the LHS.
Wiggy writes
The captain woke the other (or second) co-pilot by some means and then commented to the junior pilot in the RHS that:"he's going to take my place". i.e. the senior P2 simply replaced the captain in the Left hand seat
but that's all speculation. Who was the "other (or second) co-pilot"? We don't know whom the captain was addressing or who he meant by "he's going to take my place".
No doubt all (or most of it) will be revealed in due course. Still, it's strange - well, maybe not so strange - that the print media all proclaimed the "baby pilot" to have been PF.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LSZG
Age: 52
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for going off topic
3holelover wrote:
If this is what you call MS FS A340, yes, then it is MS FS as you say ...
I am sitting in RHS as the Side Stick I am used to, is always on the right and throttle on the left.
Have a good night
3holelover wrote:
With absolutely all the due respect I can muster... I think, Martin M, as a Microsoft ONLY "pilot" ...
I am sitting in RHS as the Side Stick I am used to, is always on the right and throttle on the left.
Have a good night
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Costa Rica
Age: 55
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot flying...
According to the first report from the BEA, it says that:
"The airline’s procedures(5) specify that to be a replacement duty pilot, a crew member must have the same rating as the crew member that he or she is replacing and, in addition, during the captain’s rest period, a pilot with the same license as the captain must be at the controls."
This tells me that 37yo F/O had to be at the controls because the 32yo F/O did not have the same license so was not qualified (according to AF procedures) to be PF while Captain was on rest break.
However, we can't be certain which seat he might have been flying from. Either of the two were qualified to be flying the plane with the Captain in the LC.
So, if the 37yo took off in the right chair, he would probably have still been there flying the plane at the time of the incident. If he was the Captain's relief, he was probably flying from the left chair with the 32yo in the right where he'd been since leaving Rio.
"The airline’s procedures(5) specify that to be a replacement duty pilot, a crew member must have the same rating as the crew member that he or she is replacing and, in addition, during the captain’s rest period, a pilot with the same license as the captain must be at the controls."
This tells me that 37yo F/O had to be at the controls because the 32yo F/O did not have the same license so was not qualified (according to AF procedures) to be PF while Captain was on rest break.
However, we can't be certain which seat he might have been flying from. Either of the two were qualified to be flying the plane with the Captain in the LC.
So, if the 37yo took off in the right chair, he would probably have still been there flying the plane at the time of the incident. If he was the Captain's relief, he was probably flying from the left chair with the 32yo in the right where he'd been since leaving Rio.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: right here inside my head
Age: 65
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Martin M
... and by your own admission, you have somehow managed to accumulate a grand total of 6 hours on that simulator.... 
....
Again, with all due respect, and with humble apologies, it hardly qualifies you for expert commentary. ...and most certainly doesn't qualify you to say you're "current on: A330/340"
I just felt those who actually took up a page of this thread debating issues with you might want to know.... with all the chatter that came, your confession was very quickly buried.
.... Again, with all due respect, and with humble apologies, it hardly qualifies you for expert commentary. ...and most certainly doesn't qualify you to say you're "current on: A330/340"
I just felt those who actually took up a page of this thread debating issues with you might want to know.... with all the chatter that came, your confession was very quickly buried.
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: 58-33N. 00-18W. Peterborough UK
Posts: 3,040
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3holelover
3holelover. MartimM made it clear earlier on that he was directly involved with Level D A330/A340 Sims. An apology may get him back when his input could be very useful.
With absolutely all the due respect I can muster... I think, Martin M, as a Microsoft ONLY "pilot" ...
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Nice, FR
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does it matter who was PF?
I suppose some people are hoping to say, 'an inexperienced pilot made a mistake', so we can all sleep easy. Very tidy, sorry I don't buy it. Three qualified pilots were on duty and it still happened. I think we are going to see lots of learning from this, I just wish we had learnt from the previous cases where only N-1 holes lined up. Assuming you need 5 holes, at say 5% chance each then there should be around 95 cases where it nearly went wrong.
It is nice to see that this thread has calmed down a little, very few people are bragging that they would have called it right first time. Most of those who have come anywhere close to being qualified to claim "seen it, done it, worn the t-shirt", are showing great humility and might only be with us now thanks to ejector seats.
I am sure that Airbus will learn an enormous amount from this, and we will all be safer for it, a high price was paid, lets get value for money.
It is nice to see that this thread has calmed down a little, very few people are bragging that they would have called it right first time. Most of those who have come anywhere close to being qualified to claim "seen it, done it, worn the t-shirt", are showing great humility and might only be with us now thanks to ejector seats.
I am sure that Airbus will learn an enormous amount from this, and we will all be safer for it, a high price was paid, lets get value for money.
3hole ... your exposing Martin considered
, I am grateful he posted the picture.
It gives me some idea where one would NOT try and stick an AoA indicator, and a better sense of where relative to the LHS the ISIS is.
If that layout is mostly similar to A330 (is it, beyond the different number of engines controls ... ) then RHS cross-cockpit scanning the ISIS would make for a slightly awkward scan technique.
A nice little unintended outcome.
Thanks to you both.
, I am grateful he posted the picture. It gives me some idea where one would NOT try and stick an AoA indicator, and a better sense of where relative to the LHS the ISIS is.
If that layout is mostly similar to A330 (is it, beyond the different number of engines controls ... ) then RHS cross-cockpit scanning the ISIS would make for a slightly awkward scan technique.
A nice little unintended outcome.
Thanks to you both.
3holelover
let it go 
No need to try and "out" people on a forum, simply debate the issue, some of us can interpret the rest
... and by your own admission, you have somehow managed to accumulate a grand total of 6 hours on that simulator.... 
....
Again, with all due respect, and with humble apologies, it hardly qualifies you for expert commentary. ...and most certainly doesn't qualify you to say you're "current on: A330/340"
I just felt those who actually took up a page of this thread debating issues with you might want to know.... with all the chatter that came, your confession was very quickly buried.
.... Again, with all due respect, and with humble apologies, it hardly qualifies you for expert commentary. ...and most certainly doesn't qualify you to say you're "current on: A330/340"
I just felt those who actually took up a page of this thread debating issues with you might want to know.... with all the chatter that came, your confession was very quickly buried.
No need to try and "out" people on a forum, simply debate the issue, some of us can interpret the rest
Originally Posted by Lonewolf50
Unless what has been posted is wrong, the FDR does not record what was on his display.
What the pilot flying was seeing is driven by his scan.
You assume that his displays matched the Left Seat displays. Fine.
You assume that his displays matched the Left Seat displays. Fine.
Originally Posted by Lonewolf50
You spend much time teaching people how to fly?
I don't know if you have, but I have.
I don't know if you have, but I have.
What we know so far is very little. It is only natural to try to fill the gaps with some conjecture but this method hasn't historically proved itself to be accurate or useful.
Stall dynamics/stall displays
@ PJ
- can't answer first question, so we need to have somebody who has gotten close to the edge or even exceeded it to tell us. I can't believe the 'bus aero is so great that some type of airframe vibration or buffet or slight wing rock cannot be present. Just my opinion.
From my experience with the full-time, automatic leading edge flaps in our little jet, stall was extremely benign. Traditional buffet/wing rock/etc. was greatly reduced, as the flaps were designed to help with. Also had better directional stability. Further, as with the 'bus, we were theoretically "protected" by our AoA limiter. So you never got to see an actual stall except the dreaded "deep stall", heh heh.
- Second question might be easier to answer, and 'bird's answer and that of the others should be interesting.
Display the AoA with respect to "stall" AoA in a straightforward manner. The display I see for the 'bus is confusing, and seems to show several points of interest. It also is embedded ion the speed display. The jet I flew with the most critical AoA was the VooDoo, and it had a big old AoA gauge with a needle indicating existing AoA and a brightly-colored needle showing where eagles dare to tread! That plane did not "stall", it pitched up and tumbled about all three axis. I can't believe the 'bus is so sensitive to AoA or a high speed mach buffet/control reversal/flutter that we need be concerned about a sudden and debilitating loss of control. And the AF447 data thus far seems to indicate that the plane can get into trouble in an insidious fashion that can be dealt with, but requires training and a good cross check.
But most importantly, the plane needs a flight control system logic that does not disregard AoA once the wheels are in the well. To disregard AoA if the speed sensors are FUBAR cracks me up. The doggone things were out to lunch to begin with, and may have only recovered some degree of usefulness at a much lower altitude. AoA fault recognition is not a difficult task for the computers, as AoA changes slightly with every pitch/gee change that the 'bus does every second or even millisecond, even in "Alt" laws. Hell, it's the AoA changes that the wings use to create those pitch/gee changes. GASP!
Secondly, a good HUD can show AoA even if the vanes/cones are frozen. The difference between pitch and actual flight path vector is AoA!!! ( wing chord incidence allowed for, naturally).
So while I am on my roll, a good HUD should be in every commercial airliner, even the small regional things. And I hope many saw the shuttle landing video last night, as it was the main TV video due to the night landing.
A good HUD need not be complicated, with many pieces of data presented. And it's easy to have "de-clutter" capabilities. It can provide no kidding velocity vector and attitude info as a matter of course. Speed, AoA, heading and such can be easily displayed as we saw last night with the shuttle display. Steering cues are a piece of cake. and the beat goes on...
Sorry for the rant, but I am upset with all the talk of who was in what seat, more weather data and press releases and such. The crash was the result of a sequence of events and human actions and aircraft characteristics, both aerodynamic and mechanical/computer-dictated, that resulted in a tragedy all here wish to prevent in the future.
and I'll edit later after I crawl off the wall ( remember, a fighter pilot is not drunk as long as he can hold on to a single blade of grass to keep from falling off the surface of the Earth!)
To your question, I'm not an aeronautical engineer so cannot explain the two questions you're asking: 1) What are the actual dynamics of the stall in a large transport aircraft?, and 2) How, in practical terms, might "the stall" be displayed to the pilots in such a way as to provide unequivocal guidance, in very bad circumstances, (weather, system failures, etc) for manual pilot recovery.
From my experience with the full-time, automatic leading edge flaps in our little jet, stall was extremely benign. Traditional buffet/wing rock/etc. was greatly reduced, as the flaps were designed to help with. Also had better directional stability. Further, as with the 'bus, we were theoretically "protected" by our AoA limiter. So you never got to see an actual stall except the dreaded "deep stall", heh heh.
- Second question might be easier to answer, and 'bird's answer and that of the others should be interesting.
Display the AoA with respect to "stall" AoA in a straightforward manner. The display I see for the 'bus is confusing, and seems to show several points of interest. It also is embedded ion the speed display. The jet I flew with the most critical AoA was the VooDoo, and it had a big old AoA gauge with a needle indicating existing AoA and a brightly-colored needle showing where eagles dare to tread! That plane did not "stall", it pitched up and tumbled about all three axis. I can't believe the 'bus is so sensitive to AoA or a high speed mach buffet/control reversal/flutter that we need be concerned about a sudden and debilitating loss of control. And the AF447 data thus far seems to indicate that the plane can get into trouble in an insidious fashion that can be dealt with, but requires training and a good cross check.
But most importantly, the plane needs a flight control system logic that does not disregard AoA once the wheels are in the well. To disregard AoA if the speed sensors are FUBAR cracks me up. The doggone things were out to lunch to begin with, and may have only recovered some degree of usefulness at a much lower altitude. AoA fault recognition is not a difficult task for the computers, as AoA changes slightly with every pitch/gee change that the 'bus does every second or even millisecond, even in "Alt" laws. Hell, it's the AoA changes that the wings use to create those pitch/gee changes. GASP!
Secondly, a good HUD can show AoA even if the vanes/cones are frozen. The difference between pitch and actual flight path vector is AoA!!! ( wing chord incidence allowed for, naturally).
So while I am on my roll, a good HUD should be in every commercial airliner, even the small regional things. And I hope many saw the shuttle landing video last night, as it was the main TV video due to the night landing.
A good HUD need not be complicated, with many pieces of data presented. And it's easy to have "de-clutter" capabilities. It can provide no kidding velocity vector and attitude info as a matter of course. Speed, AoA, heading and such can be easily displayed as we saw last night with the shuttle display. Steering cues are a piece of cake. and the beat goes on...
Sorry for the rant, but I am upset with all the talk of who was in what seat, more weather data and press releases and such. The crash was the result of a sequence of events and human actions and aircraft characteristics, both aerodynamic and mechanical/computer-dictated, that resulted in a tragedy all here wish to prevent in the future.
and I'll edit later after I crawl off the wall ( remember, a fighter pilot is not drunk as long as he can hold on to a single blade of grass to keep from falling off the surface of the Earth!)
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: IAH
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo
No need to try and "out" people on a forum, simply debate the issue, some of us can interpret the rest
Very mature advice. I concur.
MartinM
If you are learning to fly, then good luck to you. I hope you succeed. But do not take on the experts. Just concentrate on your flying lessons
Food for thought. Is there any connection with the FL increasing 7000f/m, then FL-10000 f/m, and Tim Vasquez's revised Met analysis?
No need to try and "out" people on a forum, simply debate the issue, some of us can interpret the rest
Very mature advice. I concur.
MartinM
If you are learning to fly, then good luck to you. I hope you succeed. But do not take on the experts. Just concentrate on your flying lessons
Food for thought. Is there any connection with the FL increasing 7000f/m, then FL-10000 f/m, and Tim Vasquez's revised Met analysis?