AF447 final crew conversation - Thread No. 1
CONF iture
Certainly with the table stowed the other SS is visible. I'll have do another check with the table out. Not 'til 13 Nov though.
My original check was to do with visibility in a dark flight deck.
Certainly with the table stowed the other SS is visible. I'll have do another check with the table out. Not 'til 13 Nov though.
My original check was to do with visibility in a dark flight deck.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Carmarthen
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You would show whatever the aircraft thought the stick was doing. So if pilot A was pulling back and pilot B was pushing forward, the little glowing dot would indicate whatever the aircraft had picked out of the two inputs and understood. Either pilot would be able to see that they were not the only person making inputs, if the little dot was doing something other than reflect the inputs they knew they were making.
You could perhaps add a red dot overlaid by the white, that showed you what input the aircraft had 'allowed', if a pilot was hauling back on the sidestick for all they were worth and the computer was saying 'no you don't, I'm pushing forward...' for some reason...
You could perhaps add a red dot overlaid by the white, that showed you what input the aircraft had 'allowed', if a pilot was hauling back on the sidestick for all they were worth and the computer was saying 'no you don't, I'm pushing forward...' for some reason...
Beagle’s view at #527 is a dated and unhelpful view of safety. Even during training and within limits, it might be possible to weed out the less capable pilots, but the process should be based on a deeper understanding of an individual’s capabilities and reasons for poor performance, and not just on a the outcome of a single event.
Screwing up the sim is a learning process, that's why instructors carry pointer sticks.
It's the lack of learning and/or lesson retention that is the issue
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've watched the side stick vs. yoke debate go round and round on these threads, and come to the conclusion that either I don't understand the controls / laws, or the whole debate is completely missing the point. I can't see that it matters on a bus what size the stick/yoke/whatever is or where it is - and that is not because I think there cannot be a feedback problem, but because I think if there is one, it is elsewhere.
However, I don't think anyone one else has made the point / connection, so maybe I am completely confused.
Perhaps someone who acutally flies the thing can answer the following to clarify:
Assuming a 'bus in normal law, as PNF you scan the current position of PF's controls - be it the sidestick, a hypothetical yoke, or a dot on the pfd, or whatever. You see PF, right now, has "stick" in neutral. What does this tell you about what PF is commanding the a/c to do ? [say pitch axis, is the command to climb, level, descend... that's what you want to know, right ? ]
I think it's far more worrying that despite verbally handing control to the PNF twice, the PF continued to make inputs. The concept of a single pilot in control at any given time is a fundamental aspect of the Airbus operating procedure and it should be drilled into cadets and pilots as soon as they start their type rating.
Yes, the fact that the PNF could not see or feel that the PF had not relinquished the controls can be considered a shortcoming of the design, but ultimately the PF should have known that "you have control" means immediate hands-off-the-stick unless or until control is explicitly handed back. Even in the old Chippy I used to fly, if I was physically stronger than my instructor I could have overpowered his inputs - and had I done so and lost control as a result, few would argue that the brute-force aspect of the old cable controls was at fault.
Yes, the fact that the PNF could not see or feel that the PF had not relinquished the controls can be considered a shortcoming of the design, but ultimately the PF should have known that "you have control" means immediate hands-off-the-stick unless or until control is explicitly handed back. Even in the old Chippy I used to fly, if I was physically stronger than my instructor I could have overpowered his inputs - and had I done so and lost control as a result, few would argue that the brute-force aspect of the old cable controls was at fault.
it shouldn't require two dirty great control yokes to fix it - just a little tell-tale on the instrument panel with a crosshair on it and showing the current 'virtual stick position', as familiar to anybody who has ever played a computer flight sim game using a keyboard instead of a joystick.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capn Bloggs
Not true, although I cannot remember if there is a mention of it in the interim report, but you will get an aural and visual indication of "DUAL INPUT" plus if either pilot presses the "RED" button then a "Priority Left/Right" aural and visual indication as well. So you WILL know if there are dual inputs. So the indications are already there.
As for the "telltale" there is one on the ground to show control input but not airborne, it used to be available during lift off and initial climb, but then some "pilots" were incorrectly being "trained" to use it for rotation rather than attitude!!! An interesting Emirates departure from Jo'burg comes to mind. Airbus then removed the indication at nosewheel liftoff.
To confirm for 1066 the sidestick is visible in the A330/A340. The PM in this case did not need to see it, as he knew they were climbing, from his PFD indications, and that nose up inputs were being made, hence his comments.
Not true, although I cannot remember if there is a mention of it in the interim report, but you will get an aural and visual indication of "DUAL INPUT" plus if either pilot presses the "RED" button then a "Priority Left/Right" aural and visual indication as well. So you WILL know if there are dual inputs. So the indications are already there.
As for the "telltale" there is one on the ground to show control input but not airborne, it used to be available during lift off and initial climb, but then some "pilots" were incorrectly being "trained" to use it for rotation rather than attitude!!! An interesting Emirates departure from Jo'burg comes to mind. Airbus then removed the indication at nosewheel liftoff.
To confirm for 1066 the sidestick is visible in the A330/A340. The PM in this case did not need to see it, as he knew they were climbing, from his PFD indications, and that nose up inputs were being made, hence his comments.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by iceman50
As for the "telltale" there is one on the ground to show control input but not airborne, it used to be available during lift off and initial climb, but then some "pilots" were incorrectly being "trained" to use it for rotation rather than attitude!!! An interesting Emirates departure from Jo'burg comes to mind. Airbus then removed the indication at nosewheel liftoff.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Defend the SS as much and as fervently as you want (by the way, I actually liked it if it had drive back). With the yoke however, the last xx years there has never been confusion as to what the buddy next to you was exerting and there has never been a false switch mount.
Airbus has invented these phenomenons.
Now as to how much it has contributed to this accident, it's up to interpretation, but it does not bode away that it might have contributed.
I have learnt from all my instruction and experience, that in aviation operation, and that is what pilots do and engineer should do, you should strive to eliminate each and every hole, even the remotest potential hole, in the Swiss cheese.
By staying in denial, you just disqualify yourself as safety driven professional.
Airbus has invented these phenomenons.
Now as to how much it has contributed to this accident, it's up to interpretation, but it does not bode away that it might have contributed.
I have learnt from all my instruction and experience, that in aviation operation, and that is what pilots do and engineer should do, you should strive to eliminate each and every hole, even the remotest potential hole, in the Swiss cheese.
By staying in denial, you just disqualify yourself as safety driven professional.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONF iture
Absolutely, I see it every time I get airborne.
Gretchenfrage
We are never going to convince you so it does not matter. Please explain all the other stall incidents on A/C that had yokes and still stalled as the PF held it fully back. By you staying on your pet hate of the Airbus you are in denial as well.
Absolutely, I see it every time I get airborne.
Gretchenfrage
We are never going to convince you so it does not matter. Please explain all the other stall incidents on A/C that had yokes and still stalled as the PF held it fully back. By you staying on your pet hate of the Airbus you are in denial as well.
Originally Posted by Iceman
Capn Bloggs
Not true, although I cannot remember if there is a mention of it in the interim report, but you will get an aural and visual indication of "DUAL INPUT" plus if either pilot presses the "RED" button then a "Priority Left/Right" aural and visual indication as well. So you WILL know if there are dual inputs.
Not true, although I cannot remember if there is a mention of it in the interim report, but you will get an aural and visual indication of "DUAL INPUT" plus if either pilot presses the "RED" button then a "Priority Left/Right" aural and visual indication as well. So you WILL know if there are dual inputs.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: middle of nowhere
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are never going to convince you so it does not matter. Please explain all the other stall incidents on A/C that had yokes and still stalled as the PF held it fully back. By you staying on your pet hate of the Airbus you are in denial as well.
Furthermore I do not hate Airbus, as my comment about preferring a SS to a yoke demonstrates.
I hate everything and everyone that is not willing to concede some error and then apply the appropriate correction.
To reverse the denial reproach is a very common and somewhat childish tool of people who cannot see through a genuine proposal to improve design and increase safety: I have repeatedly said, keep the SS but incorporate a drive-back!
Last but not least, I did not contest your perpetual mentioning of "... mama, mama,but the others crashed too, even with yoke .... ". You are spot on with that, no excuse.
Reread what I effectively said, namely that we should all strive to improve design and safety without any taboos. With the SS there has come some new errors. They need to be tackled, and they need not only to be tackled by increased pilot training and telling pilots off what to do if the system displays its flaws:
Improve the design to the better as well, FGS, even if it means conceding that some well meant gadgets did not work properly. You will only lose face if constantly denying the flaws, but never if you learn of mistakes.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
The forward stop.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 31st Oct 2011 at 08:17.
The forward stop.
You move the stick (or yoke/cc) forward until the stall identification ceases - which means, if necessary, the forward stop.
This is basic to stall recovery
When the stall identification ceases you can then level the wings and select an appropriate attitude.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: England.
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm beginning to wonder if the three AF447 pilots were regular PPRuNe posters. The extent to which this forum manages to complicate simple matters and completely miss the essential points borders on the hilarious. I suspect that observers (media, authorities, whoever) will eventually (if not already) come to regard PPRuNe as nothing more than an easy source of amusement, rather than a worthwhile platform for meaningful debate.
To clarify my criticism of sidesticks (by now located underneath three pages of waffle):
(1) - You might be able to see the other pilot's sidestick. You might be able to see that he's holding it. But can you see, without referring to tiny annunciators, what input he's making?
(2) - The comments regarding current annunciations and the proposals to introduce additional ones miss the point, which is that too subtle an indication of pilot control input is unacceptable.
(3) Two coupled yokes, in clear view, with visible, physical input movements (as opposed to 'motionless' pressure inputs to transducers) presents clear, immediate and unmistakable information.
AF447 would not have ended in disaster had such control yokes been installed. That conclusion applies, despite the unbelievable lack of competence displayed by all three 'pilots'.
To clarify my criticism of sidesticks (by now located underneath three pages of waffle):
(1) - You might be able to see the other pilot's sidestick. You might be able to see that he's holding it. But can you see, without referring to tiny annunciators, what input he's making?
(2) - The comments regarding current annunciations and the proposals to introduce additional ones miss the point, which is that too subtle an indication of pilot control input is unacceptable.
(3) Two coupled yokes, in clear view, with visible, physical input movements (as opposed to 'motionless' pressure inputs to transducers) presents clear, immediate and unmistakable information.
AF447 would not have ended in disaster had such control yokes been installed. That conclusion applies, despite the unbelievable lack of competence displayed by all three 'pilots'.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a Airbus pilot , Boeing for about , well, ok, all of my life. But, don't you chaps have a sidestick posn indicator? I played in our A340 sim and noticed that there was one, right in front of my face. It was repeated on the other side. Oh, and about Captain's returning after a short break; mate of mine converted to A340 after years on Boeings. During Line Training, Instructor felt safe enough to leave the Flight-Deck. Matey spotted some weather, did a bit of smart Nav, reduced speed to Turb penetration (which was below that lovely little fella... 'Green Dot ' !).Trainer returned and roasted my mate for 'Allowing the speed to fall below green dot'!Big lecture ensued regarding the A340, hot & heavy and not being able to recover the speed loss other than inducing a shallow decent. For the most part, the debate is valuable. safe flying.
