AF 447 Thread No. 6
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If, by "biased", you mean "not inclined to immediately suspect any French institution of skulduggery", then I'm guilty as charged - otherwise I'd say I'm fairly neutral. All I ask is evidence of the supposed dots you are joining.
How else am I supposed to understand what you're getting at?
There is no reason - none - for the BEA to fudge anything here even if they wanted to (the A330 is already a successful airliner, and all the evidence so far suggests that they are throwing everything they can at the investigative process). I ask again, what is it that you think you're "defending" here?
How else am I supposed to understand what you're getting at?
There is no reason - none - for the BEA to fudge anything here even if they wanted to (the A330 is already a successful airliner, and all the evidence so far suggests that they are throwing everything they can at the investigative process). I ask again, what is it that you think you're "defending" here?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
I will repeat (I posted already about)
On a pure legal sense .. AF is not a culprit concerning the Pitot tubes
It was not a law to force AF to change or replace the Pitot tubes.. it was only recommendations
You can't break a law if this law don't exist !
AF bear not responsibility concerning the Pitot tubes .. in the legal sense
In the legal sense, it's always going to be a case of split responsibility between Airbus and the airline because of the known pitot tube issues and the subsequent mishandling of the aircraft.
On a pure legal sense .. AF is not a culprit concerning the Pitot tubes
It was not a law to force AF to change or replace the Pitot tubes.. it was only recommendations
You can't break a law if this law don't exist !
AF bear not responsibility concerning the Pitot tubes .. in the legal sense
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
jcj:
The point I'm trying to make is that the pitot tube issues mean that Airbus is going to have to share responsibility in some way, I wasn't saying that AF should hold all responsibility for that. The way Lyman puts it, you'd think Airbus was going to be completely absolved - all I was saying is that they can't be.
The point I'm trying to make is that the pitot tube issues mean that Airbus is going to have to share responsibility in some way, I wasn't saying that AF should hold all responsibility for that. The way Lyman puts it, you'd think Airbus was going to be completely absolved - all I was saying is that they can't be.
So I went away for a week of real work and return, only to find this thread appears to have rewound several weeks to repeat a topic already hung, drawn and quartered - or at least it seemed so.
Here's where I thought we were:
a) All the adults seemed to agree that the 'zoom-climb' was induced by PF action. The stick-trace shows PF NU inputs, that correspond with control surface movements, that correspond with altitude change...
b) The NU inputs were not continuous (at this point) and hence not sufficient to demand a trim input from the THS. However later in the event, PF did pull, long and hard NU, such that the THS moved, as demanded, to off-load what the pilot appeared to desire.
c) That the "auto-flight", protections or any other computer induced skulduggery had anything much to do with what went wrong seems to be absent from all the evidence so far, excepting that at autopilot release the aircraft needed a mild roll correction.
d) We have seen that certain contributors here have an amazing ability to add 2+2 and get -47, in other words theories with little basis in fact, but equally little to dispute them, which in the mind of the author therefore gives them legitimacy... much to the frustration of many others. Just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. The shortest route between two points is the straight-line. While it is true we do not have all the 'dots', those that we do have, are pretty convincing.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm contributing much here, except to get my mind straight, so I'll shut-up for a bit longer.
Here's where I thought we were:
a) All the adults seemed to agree that the 'zoom-climb' was induced by PF action. The stick-trace shows PF NU inputs, that correspond with control surface movements, that correspond with altitude change...
b) The NU inputs were not continuous (at this point) and hence not sufficient to demand a trim input from the THS. However later in the event, PF did pull, long and hard NU, such that the THS moved, as demanded, to off-load what the pilot appeared to desire.
c) That the "auto-flight", protections or any other computer induced skulduggery had anything much to do with what went wrong seems to be absent from all the evidence so far, excepting that at autopilot release the aircraft needed a mild roll correction.
d) We have seen that certain contributors here have an amazing ability to add 2+2 and get -47, in other words theories with little basis in fact, but equally little to dispute them, which in the mind of the author therefore gives them legitimacy... much to the frustration of many others. Just because something is possible does not mean it is likely. The shortest route between two points is the straight-line. While it is true we do not have all the 'dots', those that we do have, are pretty convincing.
Anyway, I'm not sure I'm contributing much here, except to get my mind straight, so I'll shut-up for a bit longer.
IFLY_INDIGO
Right.
Night, IFR, lots of clouds, near large buildups, fly by looking outside the window for your visual reference.
For whom do you fly, sir?
This accident shows that how much we rely upon the indications inside that we forget to look outside and fly using stick and rudder
Night, IFR, lots of clouds, near large buildups, fly by looking outside the window for your visual reference.
For whom do you fly, sir?
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GY
Are you at all interested in what PNF meant: "What was that?" How about PF: "I think we have some crazy speed".....
You are satisfied with the presumption that the THS stayed where it was due lack of loiter at NU with the Stick?
As a sound professional whose goal is to challenge and improve the industry, you seem easily satisfied.
In a difficult investigation into a vehicular homicide locally, the defense team was frustrated by lack of witness production by the Prosecution at Trial.
Our firm found a witness who had been interviewed, and the report taken and memorialized by the State Police. It was not produced at discovery, and the upshot was that it had been hidden from the accused's counsel.
The case was dropped, with prejudice.
I am no longer trusting of the folks who are charged with Public Duty.
Certainly not when they own a financial stake in the airframe manufacturer. BEA does just that, they share a stake in the future well being of a firm that thus far has been shown to be negligent in some areas related to AF447.
Are you ffs kidding me? 2+2=47?
Are you at all interested in what PNF meant: "What was that?" How about PF: "I think we have some crazy speed".....
You are satisfied with the presumption that the THS stayed where it was due lack of loiter at NU with the Stick?
As a sound professional whose goal is to challenge and improve the industry, you seem easily satisfied.
In a difficult investigation into a vehicular homicide locally, the defense team was frustrated by lack of witness production by the Prosecution at Trial.
Our firm found a witness who had been interviewed, and the report taken and memorialized by the State Police. It was not produced at discovery, and the upshot was that it had been hidden from the accused's counsel.
The case was dropped, with prejudice.
I am no longer trusting of the folks who are charged with Public Duty.
Certainly not when they own a financial stake in the airframe manufacturer. BEA does just that, they share a stake in the future well being of a firm that thus far has been shown to be negligent in some areas related to AF447.
Are you ffs kidding me? 2+2=47?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am no longer trusting of the folks who are charged with Public Duty.
Certainly not when they own a financial stake in the airframe manufacturer. BEA does just that, they share a stake in the future well being of a firm that thus far has been shown to be negligent in some areas related to AF447?
Certainly not when they own a financial stake in the airframe manufacturer. BEA does just that, they share a stake in the future well being of a firm that thus far has been shown to be negligent in some areas related to AF447?
By your logic, we should also be suspicious of the NTSB's neutrality towards Boeing (which, although nominally publicly-held, relies on government contracts to shore up the lean times in the civil market).
So please, provide some direct evidence that the BEA has any stake in the outcome of the investigation, or leave the subject alone.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy,
Please stop feeding the troll.....
I would like to put him on my 'ignore' list, but since he changes his ID continuously, and then pollutes the thread yet again, that isn't practical, if one tries to follow the posts.
Please stop feeding the troll.....
I would like to put him on my 'ignore' list, but since he changes his ID continuously, and then pollutes the thread yet again, that isn't practical, if one tries to follow the posts.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy. NTSB? Suspicious? You must live in dreamland, or have nil experience in PUBLIC/PRIVATE partnering. The government of FRANCE owns a 15 per cent financial stake in Airbus, and BEA is an arm of the executive duty of the government.
You make assumptions that are amusing, as does Mr. Concorde.
Two weeks ago, a popular politician was found to have been behind a loan guarantee to a private Company. The Company has since gone Bankrupt, and has lost hundreds of millions of PUBLIC MONEY.
You are naive beyond belief, and trusting in areas patently populated with menace, greed, and public gullibility.
NTSB? Like the time when presented with new evidence in an ongoing investigation rejected it, because the leader was to start his vacation?
You are as a child.
You make assumptions that are amusing, as does Mr. Concorde.
Two weeks ago, a popular politician was found to have been behind a loan guarantee to a private Company. The Company has since gone Bankrupt, and has lost hundreds of millions of PUBLIC MONEY.
You are naive beyond belief, and trusting in areas patently populated with menace, greed, and public gullibility.
NTSB? Like the time when presented with new evidence in an ongoing investigation rejected it, because the leader was to start his vacation?
You are as a child.
Troll?
I think the advice to ignore Lyman (in his/their current manifestation) is wise. If Lyman is not a Troll but an Aviation Professional it is very strange that "he" chooses to communicate in a way that does not reflect the economic and efficient use of language essential to, and respected by, the Aviation Community.
If "he" truly believes in the ideas that "he" seems to be trying to get accross to others then why does he not understand about signal-to-noise ratio?
If "he" truly believes in the ideas that "he" seems to be trying to get accross to others then why does he not understand about signal-to-noise ratio?
To my mind the disquieting thing here is how the design of a machine and the attendant training culture appears to have put a cognitive boundary between the crew and physical reality. It seems that three intelligent and well trained men sat dumbfounded and incomprehending unable to discern which signals were real and which were artefacts.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman wrote:
If you are an ambulance chaser related, you can't never accept a pilot's error verdict. There is no money to be made. Wasn't it you or early incarnation against the NTSB final report of the American Airlines Flight 587? 
Just wondering aloud.
Our firm found a witness who had been interviewed, and the report taken and memorialized by the State Police. It was not produced at discovery, and the upshot was that it had been hidden from the accused's counsel.
Just wondering aloud.
Lyman... exasperated!
Hi Lyman, well I thought we had said our goodbyes, but here you are....
As a sound professional I am constrained by the limits of the data presented to me. I cannot analyze what I do not have recorded, I cannot simulate that which I cannot hear, etc. In other words, beyond a certain point I am making sh*t up. I try to avoid that.
I appreciate the comments you mention might be sound related, but don't I have enough information to definitively state what is or isn't going on? I think not. Can I hazard a guess?
Perhaps...
PNF: "What was that?" --- no, here I can't. Having heard the stall warning from the FWC, it is hard to imagine this being misunderstood, if that is your implication. The Cricket_Stall warning is a unique dual-tone that is interrupted by the spoken word "Stall" repeated every second, so you get something like, "de-da-de-da-STALL-de-da-de-da-STALL...etc". It's alarming and clear. Anyone that ignored that is pretty focused! Did the PNF hear something else? See something else?
PNF: "I think we have some crazy speed" --- yes, my guess is something like this > Once in the stall, the vertical speed would have introduced an unusual and unfamiliar wind-rush sound. Given the AoA, this sound would have had an unusual direction and I suspect character. Perhaps this was mistaken for overspeed. A stall-induced, vertical speed sound is NOT simulated in any flight simulator I have ever been inside.
As for where the THS stayed. Surely we have discussed the behavior? You hold NU for long enough and the THS trims NU, hold ND for long enough and THS trims down. What else do you need to be told?
Are you at all interested in what PNF meant: "What was that?" How about PF: "I think we have some crazy speed".....
You are satisfied with the presumption that the THS stayed where it was due lack of loiter at NU with the Stick?
As a sound professional whose goal is to challenge and improve the industry, you seem easily satisfied.
You are satisfied with the presumption that the THS stayed where it was due lack of loiter at NU with the Stick?
As a sound professional whose goal is to challenge and improve the industry, you seem easily satisfied.
As a sound professional I am constrained by the limits of the data presented to me. I cannot analyze what I do not have recorded, I cannot simulate that which I cannot hear, etc. In other words, beyond a certain point I am making sh*t up. I try to avoid that.
I appreciate the comments you mention might be sound related, but don't I have enough information to definitively state what is or isn't going on? I think not. Can I hazard a guess?
Perhaps...
PNF: "What was that?" --- no, here I can't. Having heard the stall warning from the FWC, it is hard to imagine this being misunderstood, if that is your implication. The Cricket_Stall warning is a unique dual-tone that is interrupted by the spoken word "Stall" repeated every second, so you get something like, "de-da-de-da-STALL-de-da-de-da-STALL...etc". It's alarming and clear. Anyone that ignored that is pretty focused! Did the PNF hear something else? See something else?
PNF: "I think we have some crazy speed" --- yes, my guess is something like this > Once in the stall, the vertical speed would have introduced an unusual and unfamiliar wind-rush sound. Given the AoA, this sound would have had an unusual direction and I suspect character. Perhaps this was mistaken for overspeed. A stall-induced, vertical speed sound is NOT simulated in any flight simulator I have ever been inside.
As for where the THS stayed. Surely we have discussed the behavior? You hold NU for long enough and the THS trims NU, hold ND for long enough and THS trims down. What else do you need to be told?
Last edited by GarageYears; 19th Sep 2011 at 21:13.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: here
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GY
PNF: "What was that?" --- no, here I can't. Having heard the stall warning from the FWC, it is hard to imagine this being misunderstood, if that is your implication. The Cricket_Stall warning is a unique dual-tone that is interrupted by the spoken word "Stall" repeated every second, so you get something like, "de-da-de-da-STALL-de-da-de-da-STALL...etc". It's alarming and clear. Anyone that ignored that is pretty focused! Did the PNF hear something else? See something else?
He's surprised to get a stall warning, but he knows exactly what he's hearing.
I concur that not paying attention to certain posts is probably the only way to prevent this hamster wheel from turning until any sane person participating will be exhausted.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, sound. Of course PNF recognized the STALL click click click STALL...etc. I think in this case, the sound attenuated prior to the cricket clicks. A "Nibble" then.
'Crazy Speed'. I had an open aux window in a 402 at 200+ knots, the sound was impressive. When it slammed shut, it broke, and it was hard to concentrate on the flying.
I think PNF was unimpressed with PF's PITCH control, and I am suspicious that it was due to other than his ordinarily (assumed) quality of manual flight.
So many things do not add up, here. It is easy to allow a prejudice to explain it away....."stirring Mayonnaise". "Twitchy ailerons" "Ham handed" etc. ad nauseum.
I will always assume everything was working as expected, until the proof is shown me. The released data is highly prejudicial, and I am used to it, I write it, and I defend it, and I attack it. It is "Jargon". Those unaware of the domain are excused their naive acceptance of "as written".
The PITCH, dependent "as it was" on PF's "Constant back stick" shows no follow on by the THS, and you cannot explain it. No one has. One second is all it takes for the slab to articulate and trim out the elevator. One cannot stir mayonnaise and have the THS refuse to move, the Bus is not built that way. Neither is the sharp AoA change due only PF's hand. I say that without evidence, how can that be? A frozen THS and an additive elevator input to PF's explains the unknowns perfectly, and these have not been eliminated. Unless and until I see (or hear) conclusive evidence, there is no conclusion.
BEA have concluded "nothing". Funny that? I wish for an open minded discussion, not slander and schoolyard name calling from purported 'heroes' of aviation. But I won't hold my breath.
I appreciate your comments; they are valuable as your name calling is useless.
The THS appears not to have moved from a/p loss to STALL, up or down. One circumstance explains that, and I have seen no evidence favoring or negating that very thing.
Unless........We will find out, won't we?
signal: The THS did not move from -3 degrees until the STALL. Consistent with Overspeed Protection.
signal: Pilots were alarmed at rate of climb. Consistent with automatic increase to Pilot's inputs of UP elevator in Overspeed Protection.
'Crazy Speed'. I had an open aux window in a 402 at 200+ knots, the sound was impressive. When it slammed shut, it broke, and it was hard to concentrate on the flying.
I think PNF was unimpressed with PF's PITCH control, and I am suspicious that it was due to other than his ordinarily (assumed) quality of manual flight.
So many things do not add up, here. It is easy to allow a prejudice to explain it away....."stirring Mayonnaise". "Twitchy ailerons" "Ham handed" etc. ad nauseum.
I will always assume everything was working as expected, until the proof is shown me. The released data is highly prejudicial, and I am used to it, I write it, and I defend it, and I attack it. It is "Jargon". Those unaware of the domain are excused their naive acceptance of "as written".
The PITCH, dependent "as it was" on PF's "Constant back stick" shows no follow on by the THS, and you cannot explain it. No one has. One second is all it takes for the slab to articulate and trim out the elevator. One cannot stir mayonnaise and have the THS refuse to move, the Bus is not built that way. Neither is the sharp AoA change due only PF's hand. I say that without evidence, how can that be? A frozen THS and an additive elevator input to PF's explains the unknowns perfectly, and these have not been eliminated. Unless and until I see (or hear) conclusive evidence, there is no conclusion.
BEA have concluded "nothing". Funny that? I wish for an open minded discussion, not slander and schoolyard name calling from purported 'heroes' of aviation. But I won't hold my breath.
I appreciate your comments; they are valuable as your name calling is useless.
The THS appears not to have moved from a/p loss to STALL, up or down. One circumstance explains that, and I have seen no evidence favoring or negating that very thing.
Unless........We will find out, won't we?
signal: The THS did not move from -3 degrees until the STALL. Consistent with Overspeed Protection.
signal: Pilots were alarmed at rate of climb. Consistent with automatic increase to Pilot's inputs of UP elevator in Overspeed Protection.
Last edited by Lyman; 19th Sep 2011 at 22:14.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Lyman - the THS does not move much prior to the stall because there is no reason for it to move. The THS is a surface that is designed to compensate for long-term changes in attitude. It therefore follows that in order to move it a significant amount, the demand has to be made and held for a significant period of time.
Reading the traces, it does just that, when the PF goes from "making mayonnaise" with the sidestick (where it moved slightly following a general nose-up trend in the inputs made) to holding the thing back against the stops for the best part of a minute.
The computer did not order an overspeed protection sequence because there was no overspeed situation detected by the sensors and instruments. Are you seriously accusing the BEA of wilfully deleting an overspeed warning trace from the CVR? If so I'd have to see some pretty significant evidence before I'd be inclined to take you seriously. Your suppositions have now crossed the line into unadulterated fantasy.
I've decided to do as I've been asked and henceforth leave you alone. If that means this thread becomes an endless circle-jerk between yourself and the Michel Asseline fan club making up ever more lurid theories about how it must have been the computers at fault, I no longer care.
Reading the traces, it does just that, when the PF goes from "making mayonnaise" with the sidestick (where it moved slightly following a general nose-up trend in the inputs made) to holding the thing back against the stops for the best part of a minute.
The computer did not order an overspeed protection sequence because there was no overspeed situation detected by the sensors and instruments. Are you seriously accusing the BEA of wilfully deleting an overspeed warning trace from the CVR? If so I'd have to see some pretty significant evidence before I'd be inclined to take you seriously. Your suppositions have now crossed the line into unadulterated fantasy.
I've decided to do as I've been asked and henceforth leave you alone. If that means this thread becomes an endless circle-jerk between yourself and the Michel Asseline fan club making up ever more lurid theories about how it must have been the computers at fault, I no longer care.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 19th Sep 2011 at 23:02.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dozy
Not only did the THS not move much, it did not move at all. I consider a climb of three thousand feet a "long term change in attitude". I do not accuse BEA of deletion at all; if O/P exists, it is unreported. Until the CVR is released, you need to stop making assumptions first of all that I accuse anyone of wrongdoing, and secondly, that you understand exactly what transpired.
You are quite right in another regard, my attempts to keep the collective mind ajar are futile, and have cost me dearly in the good will of ones I had befriended, and befriended me. For this I am sad......
I will not soon understand why posters here consider themselves better judges of content than the owners of the website. My questions are unanswered except by a sniff and an opinion, I see no proofs offered.
I have not demeaned or attacked, I have asked only questions that have yet to be answered by proofs. If you are offended by my crack about being naif, then so be it. You are trusting to a fault. I have long accepted that the pilots effed up, you seem unwilling to allow others to question the airframe at all.
Not only did the THS not move much, it did not move at all. I consider a climb of three thousand feet a "long term change in attitude". I do not accuse BEA of deletion at all; if O/P exists, it is unreported. Until the CVR is released, you need to stop making assumptions first of all that I accuse anyone of wrongdoing, and secondly, that you understand exactly what transpired.
You are quite right in another regard, my attempts to keep the collective mind ajar are futile, and have cost me dearly in the good will of ones I had befriended, and befriended me. For this I am sad......
I will not soon understand why posters here consider themselves better judges of content than the owners of the website. My questions are unanswered except by a sniff and an opinion, I see no proofs offered.
I have not demeaned or attacked, I have asked only questions that have yet to be answered by proofs. If you are offended by my crack about being naif, then so be it. You are trusting to a fault. I have long accepted that the pilots effed up, you seem unwilling to allow others to question the airframe at all.