AF 447 Thread No. 5
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Choroni, sometimes
Posts: 1,974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Crew disregarded flight-procedures!
Airbus Test Pilot Fernando Alonso in the German WELT of today...
Air-France-Absturz: Crew von Todesflug AF 447 missachtete Flugregeln - Nachrichten Panorama - Weltgeschehen - WELT ONLINE
Airbus Test Pilot Fernando Alonso in the German WELT of today...
Air-France-Absturz: Crew von Todesflug AF 447 missachtete Flugregeln - Nachrichten Panorama - Weltgeschehen - WELT ONLINE
airtren+ grity
@airtren
An excellent statement, and @grity
an excellent ammendment to this statement.
Thank you both.
How was that old tale (at least how i was used to it):
Flying will be be hours of joy and boredom, interspersed with moments of sheer terror.
Be always prepared for the latter.
franzl
An excellent statement, and @grity
an excellent ammendment to this statement.
Thank you both.
How was that old tale (at least how i was used to it):
Flying will be be hours of joy and boredom, interspersed with moments of sheer terror.
Be always prepared for the latter.
franzl
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: either CET or GMT
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new ?!!!?
The "report" is simply the SAME information as released in the previous "note", now labeled a "report"....? Seriously: WTF?
- GY
P.S. Admittedly I did NOT do a line by line comparison, but from what I see it is the same!
- GY
P.S. Admittedly I did NOT do a line by line comparison, but from what I see it is the same!
And for that statement they needed more than 2 month?
It´s not clarifying anything at all.
Only one example:
It would be more interesting to know, wether the aircraft behaviour followed those inputs.
franzl
It´s not clarifying anything at all.
Only one example:
• Throughout the flight, the movements of the elevator and the THS were consistent with the pilot’s inputs
franzl
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Try this link for the English version. Work to do at AF.
Safety recs summarised at http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
Safety recs summarised at http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
Last edited by BOAC; 29th Jul 2011 at 11:25.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, it looks like the safety recommendations are pretty specific, and there are clear references to AoA in both the new note and the recommendations. AF come in for implied criticism due to there being no established procedure for a flightdeck when the captain is not present as well as training in general (it appears that neither PF nor PNF called the "Unreliable IAS" procedure), and there is a recommendation for an AoA display, which will be down to Airbus and Boeing to implement - if the regulators take the recommendations up, as well as for flight recorders to record extra parameters (including all visible instruments).
So no, it's not anything like a final report, but steps forward have been made and it appears that any fears that AF or Airbus would be "protected" from criticism or requests for change were unfounded.
So no, it's not anything like a final report, but steps forward have been made and it appears that any fears that AF or Airbus would be "protected" from criticism or requests for change were unfounded.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Near the moon
Age: 52
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Frances early response
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: berlin
Posts: 152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for that statement they needed more than 2 month?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: us
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It looks as if two of the three pilots had been napping up until about 0200, and the alert pilot, the captain, leaves the cockpit.
From both the English and French versions.
A 1 h 55 min 57, le commandant de bord réveille le second copilote et annonce « […] il va prendre ma place ».
A 1 h 55, the Captain woke the second copilot and announced "[…] he’s going to take my place".
It would seem there was no playing with the radar with respect to tilt or gain, and they flew on expecting little more than some light to moderate chop.
_____________________
Is the second co-pilot the junior co-pilot, and is he the PF?
Both versions omit what appears to be a name reference in the captain's announcement.
From both the English and French versions.
A 1 h 55 min 57, le commandant de bord réveille le second copilote et annonce « […] il va prendre ma place ».
A 1 h 55, the Captain woke the second copilot and announced "[…] he’s going to take my place".
It would seem there was no playing with the radar with respect to tilt or gain, and they flew on expecting little more than some light to moderate chop.
_____________________
Is the second co-pilot the junior co-pilot, and is he the PF?
Both versions omit what appears to be a name reference in the captain's announcement.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
This is a "Synthetis Note", not the 3rd Interim Report which would be posted later (likely, following the Press Conf .)
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
So no, it's not anything like a final report, but steps forward have been made and it appears that any fears that AF or Airbus would be "protected" from criticism or requests for change were unfounded.
Well you can be a generous as you like, but if it took me 2 months to produce this level of work output where I work... I wouldn't be working there any more.
If there is one tiny shred of additional information it is this:
The rest we had before.
All this confirms is:
- The crew never mentioned UAS
- The crew never mentioned Stall
Again I may be missing something the more rigorous reader may spot.
- GY
If there is one tiny shred of additional information it is this:
At 2 h 11 min 42, the Captain came back into the cockpit.
<snip>
• Each time the stall warning was triggered, the angle of attack exceeded its theoretical trigger value
• The stall warning was triggered continuously for 54seconds
<snip>
• Each time the stall warning was triggered, the angle of attack exceeded its theoretical trigger value
• The stall warning was triggered continuously for 54seconds
All this confirms is:
- The crew never mentioned UAS
- The crew never mentioned Stall
Again I may be missing something the more rigorous reader may spot.
- GY
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I would appear that neither pilot "heard" the stall warning "Stall Stall".
Does it only come from the speakers in the cockpit or does it come through their headsets. Do AF use ANR?
It is not uncommon to observe crews (with a high work load) shut down their audio senses - like this crew did:
I would appear that neither pilot "heard" the stall warning "Stall Stall".
Does it only come from the speakers in the cockpit or does it come through their headsets. Do AF use ANR?
• Neither of the pilots made any reference to the stall warning
• Neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation
• Neither of the pilots formally identified the stall situation
rudderrudderrat asked:
The FWC generates the Stall warning and it is sent to the speaker outputs irrespective of pilot ACP control setting or speaker volume (i.e. it cannot be defeated).
Warnings are ALSO sent to the crew headsets directly.
- GY
I would appear that neither pilot "heard" the stall warning "Stall Stall".
Does it only come from the speakers in the cockpit or does it come through their headsets. Do AF use ANR?
Does it only come from the speakers in the cockpit or does it come through their headsets. Do AF use ANR?
Warnings are ALSO sent to the crew headsets directly.
- GY
Last edited by GarageYears; 29th Jul 2011 at 14:55. Reason: New data confirming warning are sent directly to headsets
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- CAS1 (ADR1, Captain probes) was erroneous during 29 seconds, starting @ 0210:05.
- CAS3 (ADR3, ISIS) was erroneous during 54 seconds, starting "after" 0210:05 but "before" 0210:16.
So (at least) during 19-29 seconds, two (or three) airspeeds were wrong, meaning that all speeds were rejected by the EFCS and AFS.
- CAS3 (ADR3, ISIS) was erroneous during 54 seconds, starting "after" 0210:05 but "before" 0210:16.
So (at least) during 19-29 seconds, two (or three) airspeeds were wrong, meaning that all speeds were rejected by the EFCS and AFS.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not uncommon to observe crews (with a high work load) shut down their audio senses - like this crew did:
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
links to new bea documents
BEA website seems to be struggling, but links direct to the pdf documents are still working (although takes a couple of tries for me):
The "note":
English: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
French: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.fr.pdf
The recommendations (actually more a note about them):
English: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
French: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/reco29juillet2011.fr.pdf
Looking at these, I think (hope) they are more press summaries / extracts released in advance of the complete interim report.
A few things do grab attention:
The "note":
English: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
French: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.fr.pdf
The recommendations (actually more a note about them):
English: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf
French: http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/reco29juillet2011.fr.pdf
Looking at these, I think (hope) they are more press summaries / extracts released in advance of the complete interim report.
A few things do grab attention:
- Recommendation for video recording of cockpit displays - perhaps implying there is still significant uncertainty about what the pilots actually saw ?
- No training (not just "not a lot" - none!!!) for manual flight or UAS at altitude (let alone alt or direct law)
- No CRM training for capt. off duty [edit: intended meaning no CRM training for the situation of capt. off duty, not that capt. was not trained - too few words used first time!]
- no UAS procedure called, and no mention of stall despite continuous warning for almost a minute at one point
- Control surfaces moved according to pilot inputs (BUT: only pitch axis mentioned, what happened in roll ?)
- Plane moved according to contol inputs "Until the airplane was outside its flight envelope". Why qualify with that ? Maybe there is a nasty deep stall behaviour in there ?
Last edited by infrequentflyer789; 29th Jul 2011 at 12:23.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: back of beyond
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@RetiredF4
You might care to read the orange bits in the report a little less selectively:
" Until the airplane was outside its flight envelope, the airplane's longitudinal movements were consistent with the position of the flight control surfaces"
Almost certainly by implication, once the airplane was "outside its flight envelope" this was no longer the case.
You might care to read the orange bits in the report a little less selectively:
" Until the airplane was outside its flight envelope, the airplane's longitudinal movements were consistent with the position of the flight control surfaces"
Almost certainly by implication, once the airplane was "outside its flight envelope" this was no longer the case.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the recommendations re image recording of the instrument displays:-
Are they suggesting a possible explanation is that the displays were not showing the same information as that recorded?
Are they suggesting a possible explanation is that the displays were not showing the same information as that recorded?