Old Carthusian

JD-EE
I am not sure what you are driving at - nothing connected with the plane failed after the initial pitot tube problems. The pilots were inadequately trained, their CRM was poor, they made no attempt to follow SOPs - the PF seems to have been suffering from acute stress reaction (shock). Nothing in fact to do with the machine but everything to do with the people and the airline.

The airplane was perfectly flyable and should have been flyable on instruments alone. Too many people are grasping at straws and thinking that somehow the machine or the warnings had a big impact on the accident. It didn't, the PF was the one who made the NU inputs and it wasn't because of cognitive overload and not hearing the stall warnings - there were three pilots. The PF panicked and went into shock pulling back on the stick. That's all there is to it. Air France training and cockpit procedures didn't give the PNF the authority or confidence to override the PF. By the time sufficient authority arrived (the Captain) it was too late.

The maxim that all pilots should follow - know your machine and these guys didn't. This is not the responsibility of the machine. It is the responsibility of the pilots and the airline.

CONF iture

I'm interested in that one, would you have a report ?

They knew exactly where the wing was going to break and all the probes of any kind would be undamaged.
Have not we seen already a F15 losing big part of the wing and a pilot bring it back for a safe landing too ?

CONF iture

Captain my great Captain, you may as well forget about any mechanical link for the AF447's rudder.

DozyWannabe

Agreed - I intended the cross post to suggest an "as well as" rather than "instead of", though I remain to be convinced that the PNF had much trouble understanding what the aircraft was telling him. The PF... not so much.

Old Carthusian - I don't know if it was "panic" causing the PF to make the inputs he did, but his actions certainly suggest him developing a degree of tunnel vision from the start of the sequence. We can't know if he heard the PF call out "Alternate Law", he certainly didn't interpret "Controls on the left" as the PNF saying "I have control".

GarageYears

Just an idle thought - how could you implement a stick-shaker on an Airbus-type side-stick?

That doesn't seem that easy, compared to a conventional yoke, at least.

Clearly the vibrational aspect of the 'shaker' is significantly important, since the aural aspects appear to be relatively easily dismissed. However, unlike a yoke, there is no significant mechanical structure to attach the shaker drive to.

If the SS were back-driven then it would be comparatively easy to implement I suppose... but it isn't.

HarryMann

The discussion seems to be oscillating between flight systems and instrumentation
.. and human factors.

On the latter, both Ian and Dozy make good points...and no, they're not mutually exclusive so a good contribution

Could I remind everyone, that if I remember correctly, PF had recently arrived in the cockpit from a rest period.
Do we know what this rest period consisted of?
I am suggesting that cockpit crew recently back from rest (sleep even) are not the ideal choice for immediate command, when another is up to date with the flight.
Perhaps it is rather naive or let's say simplistic thinking that freshly rested pilot is the more alert and certainly not up to speed as much as an exisiting crew member.

I think we all know that some people wake up and brighten up quickly, othjers take a lot longer - that is, those that can 'cat nap' and revive almost instantly well and those that can't.
Being one of the latter, I can imagine the lack of considered thought and action when confronted with a sudden shock - especially if not anticipating the responsibility of being placed in charge of the flight.

== Yaw strings and pitch strings at night ===

No problem, miniature lightweight LED ribbons/tapes are now being used in many applications, the batteries being small enough to be encompassed within the string I should think... go on, give it a go

3holelover

HarryMann.... It was the PNF who'd recently returned from rest. PF had been in his seat since departure.

DozyWannabe

Sorry, that was the PNF - we discussed it on the R&N thread, and he seems to have been fairly alert, to judge by the CVR. The PF had been in the right-hand seat since pushback. There was a suggestion that the PF had actually been on holiday in Brazil with his wife, so your suggestion could have merit in another way - should someone who has had several days off be put in a "relief pilot" role over the guy who flew the outbound leg?

Of course if neither of them had had manual handling training, that question could be academic, but I'm struck by the difference in handling approach by the two F/Os. The PNF appears to be doing as one would expect, gingerly handling the controls until the aircraft starts pointing the way he wants it to go, whereas the PF seems to be handling them with a frankly astonishing coarseness from the outset.

SRMman

The gist of many posts has been that 'modern' airline pilots aren't like they used to be, skill levels and understanding of the aircraft are lower because transport aircraft fly themselves, FBW, etc etc. Given that it seems to me unlikely that things will ever revert to the 'old days' in terms of longer training and acquired experience before new pilots reach the flight deck, maybe a different approach is needed, reflecting the "computer games" world that a lot of younger people (and some oldies!) live in today.

It has occurred to me, and apologies if this has already been suggested, that maybe a display could be made available on the PFD of a 3D model of the aircraft, as seen from the outside showing its attitude and direction of flight through the air relative to the ground. In fact something pretty similar to one of the views available in MS Flt Sim. The model, viewed either from behind or side, would be driven by the normal sensors and would replicate the actual aircraft, thus providing an easy and quick-to-assimilate visual understanding of the aircraft's behaviour. Thus, unusual attitudes in IMC or at night could be more readily recognised and countered.

On a different subject, it has been said that the flight condition AF447 was in during the final few minutes was far outside the certified flight envelope, and would never have been part of any test programme. Also the modern flight simulator does not or can not provide accurate simulations of this behaviour. But now we have actual data, traces, etc from the FDR of what happened during an A330 developed stall, could not this data be used or extrapolated by the simulator manufacturers to give more realistic aircraft pre and post stall training?

oldchina

Dozy, it was posted earlier but no-one picked up on it: is it not strange that the latest BEA report makes no mention of the crew's rest status? I'm not suggesting they got up to exhausting fun and games in Rio, just asking were they properly rested in accordance with the rules?

I think the poor PF deserves to be remembered as one who underperformed on the night, for whatever reason, compared with his usual self.

jcjeant

Hi,

Not a big problem .. and anyways already old process
More up to date will be a holographic representation .. even with vectors .. and a nice woman voice describing all the necessary actions to be performed for recover from a stall .. a spin .. etc .
Some emergency sequences can even be programed .. so it's just to activate .. and read the newspaper .. waiting end of process
Of course .. no more joystick .. buttons .. etc .. .. but instead .. some nice touch screens
All is possible today ..
But ... is this very useful for pilots ?

Lonewolf_50

I saw what you did there.
I think Dozy had a better answer than I do, at post 564.
Ian: post #565. Well said.
Old Cathrusian, good points in response.
Comment: You addressed scan breakdown, Ian addressed "data channels" in the human brain. These are both matters of interest in the human engineering side of this equation.
Likewise, Old Carthusian, the following: The balance between self initiated systems knowledge growth, and training in its application to the mission seems to be a sticking point.
Dozy:
Did you get this impression from reviewing the traces?

grity

braidet wire fibre optic or persistend material can work also, but first please the simple 2ct test with wool and daylight!

DozyWannabe

Yes. The CDB (Captain's) sidestick trace is deflected in the pitch axis no more than halfway nose down (which would be appropriate to regaining level flight or stall recovery) during the "confusing" period I refer to. The F/O's trace tells a very different story, averaging halfway back or more with a single sustained application of full back stick. The same is apparent in the lateral SS traces, stop-to-stop in the case of the F/O stick.

Thanks! Nice to agree on something...

I wouldn't be surprised if the PNF did, given his apparent mounting alarm until he calls "Controls on the left". The PF appears to be a definite candidate for tunnel-vision, however.

Again, a lot of people who don't like the sidestick design are making that assumption, but if that is the case then why do we have the references to going up when they should be going down and to touch the lateral controls as gently as possible by the PNF?

Lyman

Hey GY.

Saying my goodbyes, and wanted to wish you the best. I think you knew my purpose was to get some passion flowing in an otherwise "watching Paint Dry" venue.

Anyways, for my money, the vibrating Stick is a non starter, except maybe for the girls.

The way to a Pilot's attention is through his spatial awareness. SHAKE the AIRFRAME.........

Buffet underperformed here, and why not shake the part of the airframe that the pilot has directly in tune?

His ASS. SEAT SHAKER. There's your "tactile".........Make it annoying, and DON"T turn it OFF until he gets it flying propers.

Hope we meet up some day.

Lonewolf_50

Bear perhaps, with such a device, those whose erotic proclivities are via excitation in certain areas might too frequently fly to the edge of buffet because it feels interesting ... (Confession: This is me recycling an old joke about the attachments we assumed the ladies flying MiGs for the Soviet Air Force in the 80's had attached to their g-suits as add-ons to the leg bladders ... punch line being "and they always seem to come back from training sessions with an over G indication on the g-meter!" )

All kidding aside, a seat shaker might be something to explore as a feature for SW physical sensation in SS equipped aircraft. (Perhaps AB looked into it and the test pilots gave it a thumbs down?)

I recall a couple of decades ago some USAF flight simulators we visited as we worked to upgrade a Navy helicopter motion simulators. Some used seat vibration to induce the feeling of being in flight.

This is fairly old tech. Put another way, the tech is there, but as with most tech, the fine points of application is the real tricky part.

GarageYears

Well, if you're really off, then happy skies to you, and yes, poking the 'bear' (no pun intended) is often a good way of getting the creative juices flowing. I'm no fan of paint drying, grass growing or any other similar waste of time.

I would be honored to shoot the breeze with you any time.

I like the idea though - I have worked simulators with seat-shakers in the (recent) past, so that technology is readily available. Given a benign airframe, tepid into and past the stall, the idea of artificially giving the pilot buffet, that won't go away until out of the stall is a pretty good solution.

HarryMann

Duh! Thanks, I should have double-checked, going back a long time now.

At least some other suggestions about fitness for control have come out of it

Something was up with the PF for sure, and I agree the distinction in handling the stick seems starkly contrasted.

All these human factors are open for speculation, such as whether PNF's confidence and subsequent assertiveness was knocked a little by PF being given 'Command' ?

But it is speculation that we can never prove, in 4 minutes of extremely sparse exchanges... Not being a native French speaker I personally find the 'go up'; 'go down' comments somewhat strange for pilots*... in English it would almost certainly be 'slow down' or 'faster', or get the 'Nose down' or up. Strange as there is not an up and down control in an aircraft, that is a secondary and dependent motion, not to be taken for granted - hence another subtle sign that there was little comprehension of a stalled (and unresponding state).

*Has it been shown that the true meaning was '...(we go up) Indicative as opposed to Imperative (or even Subjunctive)

Ian W

From Old Carthusian
I should have made it plainer in my wording.
When the verbal cognitive channels are overloaded you can add more to them and all you do is make the effect worse. However, the analogue gauges do not require any verbal cognitive analysis so that channel is unloaded. So you can see a VSI needle move hard down and understand what it means even if the verbal cognitive channel is in overload - numbers changing though won't work as that requires a level of verbal analysis.

And I agree that does not mean that analogue gauges are always right - I lost a friend due to a misread of an old 3 needle analogue altimeter.

mm43

The French version uses words such as 'monte' (climb) and 'descend' (descend). I suggest that the BEA were under time constraints and the translation wasn't peer reviewed by AAIB / NTSB. The PF / PNF obviously knew what they were talking about as the odd English word was inserted into a French string.