AF 447 Thread No. 6
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Canada
Age: 82
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garage Years wrote:
To which Dani replied:
Well I flew for 35 years at a western airline and this was certainly not "absolute normal practice" because there was no "absolute normal practice". Every operation was unique and rest periods were organized by each crew on every given day (or night).
As for the ITCZ, my mob only got to penetrate it late in my career but after discussions with several pilots with extensive experience in it, my rule (and that of many peers), was to ALWAYS be in the seat during that transition. If we were going to tackle with the top of a "dry thunderstorm" I wanted to be in charge.
My opinion only.
Personally I am surprised the Captain choose to take his rest when he did - knowing the ITCZ was coming up and the weather less than optimal. However I have no knowledge whether this was Air France normal practice nor do I know what other major carriers do.
This is absolute normal practice in every western airline because every senior FO/cruise relief pilot/cruise captain can fully substitute a captain in all his tasks. Otherwise he wouldn't be cleared by training or the captain couldn't go to rest. Captains most of the time take the middle rest because that's the best one and he is enough tired to have a good sleep and he has enough time to prepare for the arrival. Well relaxed captain means good crew performance.
As for the ITCZ, my mob only got to penetrate it late in my career but after discussions with several pilots with extensive experience in it, my rule (and that of many peers), was to ALWAYS be in the seat during that transition. If we were going to tackle with the top of a "dry thunderstorm" I wanted to be in charge.
My opinion only.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is exactly the meaning of normal practise: Most of them do, some don't. In even more organized airlines, it's the airline that puts rest times into the duty roster. Of course the captain is always allowed to deviate from this if he deems it necessary.
Let me assure that I do it the same way as you do it: I stay in the cockpit if it makes sense, after carefully considering the capabilities of the rest of my crew (i.e. my two FOs). When you fly e.g. from Australia to the Middle East, you have ITCZ almost on all your 14 hrs of flight. So you have to get your rest somewhere in tropical weather. It needs some kind of courage to trust in your crew, you have to sleep, otherwise you will be underperforming during the approach, but you have always your doubts, when you lay in your bunk and cannot sleep because of the Monsoon over the Indian Ocean - especially after we know about AF447.
What also helps is a proper crew briefing before leaving your seat: Discuss the items you think there are weak points among your FOs. See if their memory items are fresh enough, if they have the correct mind set. If they have read AF447 accident reports. But don't forget all the other risks that are somewhat been forgotten: diversion, emergency descent, fire and smoke.
Let me assure that I do it the same way as you do it: I stay in the cockpit if it makes sense, after carefully considering the capabilities of the rest of my crew (i.e. my two FOs). When you fly e.g. from Australia to the Middle East, you have ITCZ almost on all your 14 hrs of flight. So you have to get your rest somewhere in tropical weather. It needs some kind of courage to trust in your crew, you have to sleep, otherwise you will be underperforming during the approach, but you have always your doubts, when you lay in your bunk and cannot sleep because of the Monsoon over the Indian Ocean - especially after we know about AF447.
What also helps is a proper crew briefing before leaving your seat: Discuss the items you think there are weak points among your FOs. See if their memory items are fresh enough, if they have the correct mind set. If they have read AF447 accident reports. But don't forget all the other risks that are somewhat been forgotten: diversion, emergency descent, fire and smoke.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
There's no evidence to suggest that the PF's PFD was displaying anything divergent from his colleague's in the LHS - and indeed, if the PFD was not making sense (over and above the unreliable airspeed and V/S unreadability) then there is no apparent indication of that, nor an attempt to cross check with the PNF and hand control over if the latter's was making more sense.
- 30 sec after AP disconnection another source for the PF's attitude was selected.
- Again the selector was moved 90 sec later.
- The Captain called : The wings to flat horizon the standby horizon
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by CONF
30 sec after AP disconnection another source for the PF's attitude was selected.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 20th Oct 2011 at 07:43.
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: FR
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would not take that as an indication that the PFD(s?) was/were wrong. Indeed, if the CPT was seated in the 3rd seat, the standby horizon was the most "accessible" for him.
Switching to "#3" source fits in the logic to try to get rid of the initial ADR fault (speed indication).
Switching to "#3" source fits in the logic to try to get rid of the initial ADR fault (speed indication).
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many ways of interpreting that - one I quite liked was that he was pointing to all three ADIs, i.e. both PFDs and the standby.
"Horizon, Horizon, Level the wings - *Standby Horizon*"
"Horizon, Horizon, Level the wings - *Standby Horizon*"
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The wings to flat horizon the standby horizon" are the words.
Not "Horizon, Horizon, Level the wings - *Standby Horizon*"
Not the first time you change the words Dozy ... but if you 'quite like' it that way ...
AZR,
Actually, the stdby horizon is not as attractive than the big PFDs.
ADR switch for speed indication makes sense, but something else could be at stake when IR switch is performed ...
Not "Horizon, Horizon, Level the wings - *Standby Horizon*"
Not the first time you change the words Dozy ... but if you 'quite like' it that way ...
AZR,
Actually, the stdby horizon is not as attractive than the big PFDs.
ADR switch for speed indication makes sense, but something else could be at stake when IR switch is performed ...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the french original:
EDIT: Earlier, the PNF referred to the three (displays?):
Les ailes à plat l’horizon l’horizon de secours
02:10:33 (PNF) Selon les trois tu montes donc tu redescends (According to the three you’re going up so go back down)
02:10:35 (PF) D'accord (Okay)
02:10:36 (PNF) T'es à - Redecends (You’re at - Go back down)
(PF) C'est parti on (re)descend (It’s going we’re going (back) down)
02:10:39 - 02:10:46 (PNF) Je te mets en en A T T (*) ... (I’ll put you in in A T T (*)…)
02:10:35 (PF) D'accord (Okay)
02:10:36 (PNF) T'es à - Redecends (You’re at - Go back down)
(PF) C'est parti on (re)descend (It’s going we’re going (back) down)
02:10:39 - 02:10:46 (PNF) Je te mets en en A T T (*) ... (I’ll put you in in A T T (*)…)
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 20th Oct 2011 at 18:27.
@Max Jack:
Probably not. Ice tends to make an airfoil less aerodynamically efficient, and thus lose lift.
Probably not. Ice tends to make an airfoil less aerodynamically efficient, and thus lose lift.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we're going to be completely picky about it, the English translation reads:
and the French original :
So it is said three times (once in fact by the PNF trying to draw attention to something) and my ordering was off, my bad - but it is really such a big deal?
Captain : The wings to flat horizon the standby horizon
PNF : The horizon (second)
PNF : The horizon (second)
CDB : Les ailes à plat l’horizon l’horizon de secours
OPL (PNF) : L’horizon (segonde)
OPL (PNF) : L’horizon (segonde)
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Switzerland, Singapore
Posts: 1,309
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this sequence on the tape is completly irrelevant. The captain tries to show the PF that he is not wings level, which is very difficult in a stalled state (he did in fact a 180 turn in his fall from the skies). The captain might have thought that he was a bit lazy on the ailerons, but of course in real it was the pitch that needed the biggest attention.
Last edited by Dani; 21st Oct 2011 at 12:42.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The exchange immediately following that one is interesting, because both the PNF and Captain say that the PF is climbing, and yet while the VS trace has gone unreliable, it never indicates above 0 until after 2:14:00, and the altimeter is rapidly and consistently unwinding throughout.
So where do they get "climbing" from?
So where do they get "climbing" from?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So where do they get "climbing" from?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But they were (for the most part) pitched up, but descending. Is there something in the translation from the French I'm missing here? The ADI can tell you how you are pitched and banked, but it can't tell you if you're climbing or descending without reference to the altimeter or VS indicator.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just tossing one more herring (probably a red one) into the bin.
How many pilots would ever have seen - in real lifre or in the sim - a V/S 'needle' (yes, I've seen what it looks like on the display) pegged at well over 10k f/min ? And accepted it as real ? And drawn the 'right' conclusions ?
Just my herring....
How many pilots would ever have seen - in real lifre or in the sim - a V/S 'needle' (yes, I've seen what it looks like on the display) pegged at well over 10k f/min ? And accepted it as real ? And drawn the 'right' conclusions ?
Just my herring....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
But they were (for the most part) pitched up, but descending.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know what will be told if I crash my AB.
One other thing. Anything we build that's as complex as an a/c has flaws. All of them are flawed in some way, and always will be. Even if we might disagree from a design perspective on where those flaws are, I'd far far rather be flown by someone like you who is actually interested in researching and understanding where his machine is or may be flawed, versus a pilot who thinks it is perfect and looks no further than the minimum training. If you are stuck flying a plane you don't actually like (or even actively dislike), then I'm sorry for that (but no design will please everyone), on a routine day you'll be the less happy pilot, but if things go wrong you might well be the better pilot as a result.
Last edited by infrequentflyer789; 20th Oct 2011 at 22:22.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: France
Posts: 2,315
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I the only one here who thinks there is little or no point in an AoA indicator on the panel of an 'ordinary' subsonic airliner?
We've seen arguments for it on carrier-based aircraft, and yes, Concorde had one, but that was hardly an 'ordinary' airliner.
Does anybody here have any suggestions on how you would "fly" an AoA indicator in normal operations? And how you would include it in your scan?
To me, the suggestion of adding an 'unfamiliar, new' instrument (requiring additional training, too) because, once upon a time, people were incapable of inferring the state of their aircraft from the available data, makes no sense.
I hope I made myself clear.
We've seen arguments for it on carrier-based aircraft, and yes, Concorde had one, but that was hardly an 'ordinary' airliner.
Does anybody here have any suggestions on how you would "fly" an AoA indicator in normal operations? And how you would include it in your scan?
To me, the suggestion of adding an 'unfamiliar, new' instrument (requiring additional training, too) because, once upon a time, people were incapable of inferring the state of their aircraft from the available data, makes no sense.
I hope I made myself clear.