AF 447 Thread No. 5
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Red/black issues
Hi HundredPercentPlease,
Or more likely 100% wrong...
See BEA reports #1 & #2 (below p.47)
Representation is not exact of the flight parameters but it is how the red/black tapes should look from the beginning of speed issues:
Nominal PFD:
PFD in alternate 2 law (no red/black stuff displayed due to SPD LIM flag on both PFD):
Originally Posted by HundredPercentPlease
What do you get on the speed tape in alternate law at very low speed? A red and black ladder filling your speed tape?
Originally Posted by xcitation
You might have this already 100%.
According to manual see red and black then [stick back] "reflex action".
Quote from airbus manual, my bold for emphasis.
According to manual see red and black then [stick back] "reflex action".
Quote from airbus manual, my bold for emphasis.
See BEA reports #1 & #2 (below p.47)
Representation is not exact of the flight parameters but it is how the red/black tapes should look from the beginning of speed issues:
Nominal PFD:
PFD in alternate 2 law (no red/black stuff displayed due to SPD LIM flag on both PFD):
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From Thermalsniffer's integrated transcript, Note, and ACARS in post #1323
Apologies if I have missed an explanation earlier, but why would PF think he had lost the vertical speed? That indication essentially relies on static pressure readings which should not have been impaired. I'm wondering if the high AOA is causing more indications to be disabled than we suspected.
2 h 11 min 58
PF: J’ai un problème c’est que j’ai plus de vario là
I have a problem it's that I no longer have vertical speed
CAP: D’accord
OK
PF: J’ai plus aucune indication
I no longer have any indication
PF: J’ai un problème c’est que j’ai plus de vario là
I have a problem it's that I no longer have vertical speed
CAP: D’accord
OK
PF: J’ai plus aucune indication
I no longer have any indication
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy
I've been on the road a bit, but is this a personal conclusion, or a BEA statement?
To my mind, the aircraft was only unrecoverable when they ran out of altitude with which to recover. I haven't seen anything authoritative on the subject that says it was absolutely unrecoverable once deeply stalled.
(at which point the aircraft approached and entered stall) for 57 seconds, after which point the aircraft was already unrecoverable.
To my mind, the aircraft was only unrecoverable when they ran out of altitude with which to recover. I haven't seen anything authoritative on the subject that says it was absolutely unrecoverable once deeply stalled.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Machinbird,
It's a personal conclusion, but I think it's logical.
I've munged some of the FDR traces into a graphic here (apologies for the poor resolution, but I only had the PDF to work with) :
As the stall warning clicks off at around 2:11:47, the THS moves towards its limit of travel and the ground speed falls below 200kts. The THS took approx. 1 minute to move to the limit of nose-up travel from neutral. At this point the PF has been holding full back stick for approx. 5 seconds and will continue to do so for a further 25 seconds or so. To get the nose down and return the THS to neutral is going to take some time, and they're falling at speeds of up to 10,000ft/min.
It's a personal conclusion, but I think it's logical.
I've munged some of the FDR traces into a graphic here (apologies for the poor resolution, but I only had the PDF to work with) :
As the stall warning clicks off at around 2:11:47, the THS moves towards its limit of travel and the ground speed falls below 200kts. The THS took approx. 1 minute to move to the limit of nose-up travel from neutral. At this point the PF has been holding full back stick for approx. 5 seconds and will continue to do so for a further 25 seconds or so. To get the nose down and return the THS to neutral is going to take some time, and they're falling at speeds of up to 10,000ft/min.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: venice, ca
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who's in charge?
It is always crystal clear who's number 1, 2 and 3. Depending on position:
Captain #1, Relief Captain #2, or Co-pilot 1 or 2. All based on seniority.
Where they sit is immaterial.
At least in the U.S.
Captain #1, Relief Captain #2, or Co-pilot 1 or 2. All based on seniority.
Where they sit is immaterial.
At least in the U.S.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi thermalsniffer,
After a quick reading of the listing, I've got few observations:
Is the vertical speed indicator the only clue? Could be the three AH also, hence better calling them "indicators"
See previous posts about that. Where is who? The Captain? Why would the PNF not know where he is resting?
French "il" is for both animate/inanimate = he/it ; "euh" is hesistancy, a missing word.
So it means: "where is [...]" -> unfinished (something and clearly not someone).
There is only a very short period of time possible for those ACARS triggering (six seconds).
It is discussed in the report: between 2 h 11 min 48 and 2 h 11 min 54.
NO!!
"gauchissement" is a technical aeronautical word which has nothing to do with with the left hand. It's all about [edit: roll] control.
Hence "Gauchissement" => [edit: roll] moment ; it only means that the pilot is applying full stick imput (without direction precised)...
After a quick reading of the listing, I've got few observations:
Originally Posted by thermalsniffer
2 h 10 min 33
PNF: Selon les trois tu montes donc tu redescends
According to the three you're going up, so you go back down (meaning the three vertical speed indicators... )
PNF: Selon les trois tu montes donc tu redescends
According to the three you're going up, so you go back down (meaning the three vertical speed indicators... )
Originally Posted by thermalsniffer
2 h 10 min 49
PNF: (…) il est où euh ?
Uh, where is he?
PNF: (…) il est où euh ?
Uh, where is he?
French "il" is for both animate/inanimate = he/it ; "euh" is hesistancy, a missing word.
So it means: "where is [...]" -> unfinished (something and clearly not someone).
Originally Posted by thermalsniffer
"ACARS
2:12:10 WRN/WN0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV
2:12:16 WRN/WN0906010211 341201106FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV
Initial event messages in que, delayed transmission.
2:12:10 WRN/WN0906010211 341200106FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV
2:12:16 WRN/WN0906010211 341201106FLAG ON F/O PFD FPV
Initial event messages in que, delayed transmission.
It is discussed in the report: between 2 h 11 min 48 and 2 h 11 min 54.
Originally Posted by thermalsniffer
2 h 12 min 59
PF: Je suis à fond à… avec du gauchissement
I'm at the limit of the stick... to the left
PF: Je suis à fond à… avec du gauchissement
I'm at the limit of the stick... to the left
"gauchissement" is a technical aeronautical word which has nothing to do with with the left hand. It's all about [edit: roll] control.
Hence "Gauchissement" => [edit: roll] moment ; it only means that the pilot is applying full stick imput (without direction precised)...
Last edited by takata; 3rd Aug 2011 at 05:09.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Dozy,
What I can tell you, and I'll bet my life on that, is that this "gauchissement" error doesn't come from Lemurian!!
So, no proof reading here and I didn't myself read everything listed.
Originally Posted by Dozy
@takata - IIRC the translations themselves come from Lemurian - I believe thermalsniffer merely added the requisite parts from the BEA press release in June.
So, no proof reading here and I didn't myself read everything listed.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@takata
(the icons next to the poster's name will link to the original post)
I also know Lemurian, and I don't think he'd make that kind of mistake. I think what the translation means is "I'm at the limit of the stick - adding left rudder".
I also know Lemurian, and I don't think he'd make that kind of mistake. I think what the translation means is "I'm at the limit of the stick - adding left rudder".
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 3rd Aug 2011 at 02:41.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3holelover hit it exactly
At the risk of making myself appear more foolish than I already have, I feel compelled to offer an observation;
Some time back, in one of these threads, someone posted a link to some utubes of some Airbus simulator training in progress. At the time, probably because I've had very little experience in the pointy end during flight, I was struck by the "automaton" nature of the behaviours I saw. I thought it truly looked as though pilots had become mere accessories to the computers, with little room for thought and/or any sense of actually "piloting" their machines.
It looked to me, as I watched the gents twiddling knobs and going through checklists and pecking away at keys, that these sorts of pilots had been programmed to deal with their jobs as a computer tech might with his network administration tasks.
It struck me that these were not at all like the pilots of old who could fly any big old bird with several broken bits and malfunctioning whatnots, because they knew the basics of keeping their machine in it's element.
"Two kinds of pilot" I thought. "Old" and "New". "Old" could fly almost anything with wings, but not a newer, glass and computer machine. "New" could fly the computer generation "smart" birds, but probably not an old DC3.
I'm still mulling over those distinctions, but it has occurred to me more recently that this particular airplane needed both kinds of pilot, and the two "New" types that were in the seats just had none of the abilities of that "Old" type. I simply cannot fathom any of the type "Old" failing to recognize a stall. ... at any point during a 35000ft descent.
Some time back, in one of these threads, someone posted a link to some utubes of some Airbus simulator training in progress. At the time, probably because I've had very little experience in the pointy end during flight, I was struck by the "automaton" nature of the behaviours I saw. I thought it truly looked as though pilots had become mere accessories to the computers, with little room for thought and/or any sense of actually "piloting" their machines.
It looked to me, as I watched the gents twiddling knobs and going through checklists and pecking away at keys, that these sorts of pilots had been programmed to deal with their jobs as a computer tech might with his network administration tasks.
It struck me that these were not at all like the pilots of old who could fly any big old bird with several broken bits and malfunctioning whatnots, because they knew the basics of keeping their machine in it's element.
"Two kinds of pilot" I thought. "Old" and "New". "Old" could fly almost anything with wings, but not a newer, glass and computer machine. "New" could fly the computer generation "smart" birds, but probably not an old DC3.
I'm still mulling over those distinctions, but it has occurred to me more recently that this particular airplane needed both kinds of pilot, and the two "New" types that were in the seats just had none of the abilities of that "Old" type. I simply cannot fathom any of the type "Old" failing to recognize a stall. ... at any point during a 35000ft descent.
I will never, in my life, set foot on another 'Bus. I can't trust it to be actually piloted.
Guest
Posts: n/a
It was not the Bus. Not in any sinister way it wasn't. Nor was it the Pilots.
The more discussion that arrives, the less pat is the answer. I am unable to let the Right turn alone. "I am at the limit of the STICK, LEFT!" "I'LL put in Rudder." Yaw was a problem, each time to the right. It won, so the Pilots were unable to mitigate the Yaw right. All the ROLL input is not PI.
This thread is out of control, nearly as far as the a/c it addresses. The Pilots are crap! The Bus is a Coffin!
Each time there is new data, gestating theories latch it like dogs on meat.
The territory of wild questions and dumb theories used to be mine.
You're scaring me.
The more discussion that arrives, the less pat is the answer. I am unable to let the Right turn alone. "I am at the limit of the STICK, LEFT!" "I'LL put in Rudder." Yaw was a problem, each time to the right. It won, so the Pilots were unable to mitigate the Yaw right. All the ROLL input is not PI.
This thread is out of control, nearly as far as the a/c it addresses. The Pilots are crap! The Bus is a Coffin!
Each time there is new data, gestating theories latch it like dogs on meat.
The territory of wild questions and dumb theories used to be mine.
You're scaring me.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw on some show about aviation disasters, a German pilot talking about the sidestick, and how there was absolutely no feedback from the airplane and its controls; that inhuman attention to the minutiae of data that is constantly streaming from the instruments was persistently required, and that the distracting voice of some perhaps very attractive stew was enough to momentarily lose situational awareness, whereas having the yoke in one's hand, with its pull and push, was sufficient to restore engagement of the bigger head. That told me everything I needed to know about Bussism.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just my perception or is it that both FO's talk in vague terms. Lots of ambiguous references to up/down and to indicators. At one point is there confusion in what they are conversing about? I am not a native french speaker however at best the terminology sounds imprecise. Perhaps AF pilots have a verbal short hand? Did the pilots suddenly down shift from precise technical language only at the onset of problems?
Clearly there was adreniline with workload off the scale. However there appears to be much confusion in communications between pilots which is not normally present in incidents. Is this an area that needs adressing in training/line culture?
Clearly there was adreniline with workload off the scale. However there appears to be much confusion in communications between pilots which is not normally present in incidents. Is this an area that needs adressing in training/line culture?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
I also know Lemurian, and I don't think he'd make that kind of mistake. I think what the translation means is "I'm at the limit of the stick - adding left rudder".
Gauchir is a verb meaning "twisting", there is no notion of direction, you can "gauchir" to the right or to the left! Gauchissement is the noun of the action of twisting, in aeronautical, it is [edit: roll moment] ... in whatever direction!
When he says, "avec du gauchissement", he just says that he is using [edit: roll] imputs, where do you read that he applies "left" [edit: roll]?
Please, find the meaning of that:
"Le gauchissement est l'action de gauchir c'est-à-dire tordre, vriller."
Last edited by takata; 3rd Aug 2011 at 05:04. Reason: bad wronginess
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 54
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bussism, yes. But we knew that. If an a/c needs a driver, so be it. It is what it is, and the a/c is not dishonest. No one is. The danger lies in not understanding what is. If I get a speeding ticket, I can't kick my car.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@takata, calm down... I gave you a link to spagiola's post, and to Lemurian's follow-up. Lemurian added the words "of the stick" but did not alter "to the left". Don't shoot the messenger!
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Paris
Posts: 691
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
@takata, calm down... I gave you a link to spagiola's post, and to Lemurian's follow-up. Lemurian added the words "of the stick" but did not alter "to the left". Don't shoot the messenger!
Last edited by takata; 3rd Aug 2011 at 05:05. Reason: wrongitude
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
DozyWannabee, commenting to BOAC you mention Birgenair. I think Takata rather noticed something I didn't chiefly because I have to guess what the graph titles are. What happened at 02:11:45? It looks like the nose dove down sharply if that is what "assiette (D- A cabrer)[DA]" means on the title for the dark green trace near the middle on page 114 of the French version of the recent report.
If that really is "nose plate" or the pitch angle of the nose of the aircraft that explains the sharp nose up stick input at that point. Before that moment stick inputs appear to have been rather mild.
It appears the plane, based on its aerodynamics not automatic anything, did exactly the right thing, get the nose down to pick up airspeed for stall recovery. Unfortunately I suspect transport pilots have a rather visceral fear of a 12 degree nose down pitch. Hence we see the nose up inputs. And of course the PF would see the aircraft's attitude making no sense given his nose up inputs.
It makes just a whole lot of good sense. And points up the utterly unprepared/untrained state of the pilots (plural intentional) on AF447.
I think takata should stand up and take a bow on this observation.
If that really is "nose plate" or the pitch angle of the nose of the aircraft that explains the sharp nose up stick input at that point. Before that moment stick inputs appear to have been rather mild.
It appears the plane, based on its aerodynamics not automatic anything, did exactly the right thing, get the nose down to pick up airspeed for stall recovery. Unfortunately I suspect transport pilots have a rather visceral fear of a 12 degree nose down pitch. Hence we see the nose up inputs. And of course the PF would see the aircraft's attitude making no sense given his nose up inputs.
It makes just a whole lot of good sense. And points up the utterly unprepared/untrained state of the pilots (plural intentional) on AF447.
I think takata should stand up and take a bow on this observation.