Coagie

Christiaanj,
I've heard that stall recognition and recovery is no longer required to get a PPL here in the states (someone on the forum will know). It's because many people are not as fascinated with flying as in the past, and the smaller aircraft industry wants it easier to obtain a pilots license to have more customers. I wonder if this is true in europe, as well as the USA?
Side note: I feel sad everytime I see the Concorde mentioned. I have tremendous respect for the French and British people who developed it. I hope some day it will come back. France and Brittain should always take pride that it is their's!

aerobat77

"I've heard that stall recognition and recovery is no longer required to get a PPL here in the states (someone on the forum will know). It's because many people are not as fascinated with flying as in the past, and the smaller aircraft industry wants it easier to obtain a pilots license to have more customers. I wonder if this is true in europe, as well as the USA?"

due to JAR FCL stalls and even spins are required for the practical training.

look here at 1.125

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/175/Sectio...R-FCL%201_.pdf

flight schools for this have some simple approved trainer like a C152 approved for aerobatics or a subaru fuji eg.

but i doubt it will be helpful in stall recovery of an a330.

with multi engine turbine or jet aircraft i must say we only trained a stall in the simulator- NEVER in the real aircraft. simply because such a plane is not approved for intended stalling and no insurance would cover such a training in real life.

Dani

naaa, I'm pretty convinced that basic aerobatic and/or stall training is of some basic help even on an airliner. It's just not much helpful if you have a serious instrument failure (for BOAC I'm not saying worst anymore <grin>). In such a configuration you first have to realize that you are in stall, which is not easy at all. But the problem was not that they didn't get out of the stall but that they got in!

Linktrained

Christiaan J #1454

Perhaps it was having TOGA from engines mounted under the wings that made the stall so stable. I have tried to think what the effect might have been with DOUBLE the thrust actually available... Ultimately a tail-slide ? (NOT TO BE ENCOURAGED...)

The twin-engined Airspeed Oxford/Consul was nearly cleared for spin training - but could not be cleared throughout its C of G range. My flying instructor demonstrated a barrel roll with two pupils aboard, instead.

Within a short time under the hood of a Link Trainer, most of us had stalled and spun and learned to recover on instruments. An Engineering expression of that era was encouraging" Non Destructive Testing". Our failures were not lethal.

thermostat

Lyman, I hope your "soldier pilots" are taught to keep away from CBs when close to "coffin corner". That is what caused the loss of control. It has nothing to do with :- the Airbus, stall recovery, automation, 2 FOs in the cockpit, alternate law, etc, etc. You simply don't fly into CBs when so close to coffin corner. That is where the training needs to be.
I'm really appalled at the amount of posters who are totally off track on this crash. Shame on you all. Remember that all the other 'planes that circumnavigated the storm landed safely. Wake up guys !!!
How many more times must this be said?? Night, heavy, high, many warnings at the same time, turbulence, loss of speed info, loss of automation, total confusion. What do you think they could have done under those circumstanced??
No, the training has to be simply, DON'T FLY INTO CBs WHEN CLOSE TO COFFIN CORNER. Judging from the comments, it seems that most of you don't understand this basic principal. Better hurry up and learn it so you don't have the same fate.

aerobat77

@ linktrained : i think applying TOGA in FL 350-380 in a non event, the engines by far do not develop the thrust they do in sealevel and are running at this altitude already close to the max available. when they descended lower- when i,m correct - the engines were set to idle . they crashed with engines idling and - but here an airbus driver may further comment, not fully sure- in alternate law alpha protection is lost and the engines will not go into TOGA by themselfes.

@ thermostat : of course the best is to prevent a critical situation and not to fight one. and of course its always a bad idea to fly CB,s . but some "fighting" skills should also be present. three people starring for 3.5 minutes at a high pitch / massive descend aircraft without knowing its a stall in my opinion also cannot be the answer to modern aviation safety.

Zorin_75

@aerobat

The engines were set to idle two times, but most of the descent was in TOGA. In the end they were at 105% N1.

BOAC

- do you too have an Oozlum bird as pet as it seems to have escaped into this forum from R&N

Once again for all: THEY DIDN'T and THEY WEREN'T

CONF iture

Of course BOAC, Oozlum bird for thermostat
Remember that 2 flights flew through the same 'storm' and landed safely.
As you are perfectly aware of this, shame on you thermostat, and shame on the BEA, which choose not to display those 2 flights on its trajectory video :




As the crew realized there was a problem with indicated airspeed, they selected, through the AIR DATA selector, another ADR source for the PF airspeed indication.
In the meantime, it is possible the crew realized there was a problem with attitude indication as they selected, through the ATT HDG selector, another IR source for the PF attitude indication.

The ATT HDG switch has been manipulated a second time later on.
BEA has been very quiet on those selections ...

No Oozlum here BOAC, not yet.

BOAC

Thanks for the 12-bore, conf. Can ANYONE explain what 'ATT' does to an ADI and why it would be used. I know what it does on a 737 and I really hope it is not the same on the magic beastie.

Dani

They just change the source of the ATT information from IRS 1 or 2 to 3. With this procedure they can compare the 3 IRS - and found out that they all show the same thing, so it might have reassured them, at least it didn't resolve their confusion.

It's not a "one way button" where you go to attitude only information, or have to calculate variation/drift by yourself. This button also exists, but is placed on the overhead panel, close to the ADIRS. It wouldn't have helped in this scenario.

Hamburt Spinkleman

Not really. All selections of ATT HDG and AIR DATA have been reported. As to why the selections where done is somewhat in the realm of speculation. I don't think the BEA should engage in PPRuNe style of speculation.

The first selection of AIR DATA and then shortly after ATT HDG to F/O ON 3 makes sense for the AIR DATA part as the PF reports he has no speed indication.

Later both selectors are placed in CAPT ON 3. This may suggest there was a belief that both selectors should be on same source when out of NORMAL.

The last selection is AIR DATA back to NORM.

There is no indication that any of the IR mode selectors where set to ATT at any time.

The various selections of ATT HDG means that all three IRs had been used for attitude display in various combinations. 1 and 2, 1 and 3 and finally 3 and 2. On top of that there was the ISIS.

There is no indication that there was any discrepancy between the four attitude sources.

BOAC

That seems illogical - when (presumably) all three ADIs were agreeing (they were, weren't they........? why change PF's EADI? Is this an AB drill?

thermostat

Aerobat77, Yes I agree, however "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". They were confused. They did not recognize the stall so were unable to solve the problem. Other points I want to make :- the same super cooled water (ice) that blocked the pitot tubes would also have rendered the AoA inop.
Descending at 3,000 metres per minute (almost flat) would render the elevators ineffective. The action of holding the SS fully back would make the stabilizer trim nose up to fair the stab with the elevator, (some people don't seem to understand this). The 'plane's computers were not at fault.
This was a mess and I wonder how many pilots would have able to recover. By staying away from CBs you don't have to be a pro at stall recovery. That's my point and I won't budge from it.
Thanks.

Zorin_75

thermostat,

did you read any of the threads here on the subject or at least the BEA report?

Coagie

Thermostat, there was still enough airspeed for the elevators to get a grip. You should read through the different threads over the last few months and read the BEA report. I'm sure you'd understand it. You don't have an informed opinion. I agree it'd been great if they'd only gone around the storm, but they were hardly in dire straights.

jcjeant

Amazing is that the pilot put himself the plane in a stall .. and after .. don't understand that the plane is stalling and plumeting to sea ....
Seem's he don't know what he had made

Lyman

jcjeant.

Are you actively ignoring the several reasons STALL went unnoticed, and hence uncorrected? Lord knows I can bang on, but you take the cake.

CONF iture

AIR DATA a lot.
ATT HDG bare minimum. Where is the ATT HDG switching trace ?

thermostat

I have read ALL of the threads since the black boxes were found. Most of them pretty stupid. When passengers pay to travel on an aeroplane, they expect a high level of proficiency. They also expect to arrive at their destinations in tact.
They don't expect to be flown through CBs and end up at the bottom of the sea.
I have flown 5 different passenger jets over 32 years, 11 years on the A320.
I retired without scratching any 'planes or injuring any of my passengers. You don't accumulate 17,000 +hours by making stupid decisions. Flying through CBs is stupid, especially at 35,000 feet. You don't have to like my opinion, you just have to learn from it.
This will be my last post on the subject.