Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF447 final crew conversation - Thread No. 1

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF447 final crew conversation - Thread No. 1

Old 10th Feb 2012, 16:59
  #1281 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 80
Posts: 1,689
Any aircraft that keeps automatically trimming nose up after the stall AOA is reached has a fouled up design.
Maybe so, BUT ... would the sidestick input alone not have kept the airplane in the stall?
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 17:27
  #1282 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,458
Maybe so, BUT ... would the sidestick input alone not have kept the airplane in the stall?
Another weakness of the design. A large transport aircraft should need two hands to hold it in a stall, not a crooked pinky finger.

Granted, there are other transports that do not meet this force criteria as well.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 17:48
  #1283 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 40
Not so fast.

The Automation was built to ASSIST mankind not to second guess him. The Automation was in Alternate Law (NOT in Normal Law) but still allowing it to ASSIST the pilots as in "YOU WANT TO GO UP?. My God you shall go up with all the might of this airplane (THS full up)". But the instruction from the pilot was and still is WRONG cause a High Altitude STALL will be imminent and guarantied, as it did. Machines in full automation do one (and that one might be composed of many, mind you) thing only. And if that one thing can't be performed at its fullest, it must relinquish control back to humans immediately. And in the AF447, that is exactly what the Automation DID as per DESIGN.


But the way, speaking of Automation in those less than 4 minutes of the tragedy, none of the three guys had the smart idea of trying to bring the Auto Pilot back on line and then if successful the Auto-throttle later. Someone should set an A330 simulator and emulate conditions as in the AF447 at level flight100 and throw the AP back on and if successful throw the Auto-Throttle just as well. See what happens. You know what would be funny but not really that so, don't you? Just in case, I am presuming that deploying the spoilers was a great idea of course.






Cheers,
VGCM66 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 18:40
  #1284 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Boston
Age: 69
Posts: 440
Maybe not so much sidestick vs yoke, but FBW vs Direct Control. This FBW CR*P is nothing but an "arcade" game instead of having FULL control of your aircraft. Yes.....cable-operated. Old-fashioned...yes...but 99.9% reliable.
Uhmm I hope a bit better than that.

I allways cringe when I hear something discounted as "that's a 1 in a million scenario". If you do the math on departures per year one in a million is a bit on the low side...
MurphyWasRight is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 19:32
  #1285 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Folks, was there a diagram posted on here of the sidestick mechanical layout/operation?

I remember seeing it but what with all the moding/editing have lost track of it...
glad rag is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 20:11
  #1286 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,458
Originally Posted by VGCM66
The Automation was built to ASSIST mankind not to second guess him.
Let us not confuse automation, basic irreversible hydraulic controls, and the benefits of good aerodynamic design.
What told the THS to go up was not the high level of automation that the 'Bus can deliver, but a flawed version of basic aerodynamic common sense that used to be designed into the basic airframe, but now resides in a black box.

In days of yore when flying 'big iron', you would have to trim up next to the stall either manually or with the trim button, and then give a firm heave on the controls for a prolonged period of time to get well into a stall (Think something like the DC-6)
Then along came the jets with their higher control forces and hydraulic boosted, then completely irreversible controls followed causing our control forces to be generated artificially.
Then we had the T-tailed aircraft with their pitch up in the stall that need protective devices to certify the airframe and we became used to flying aircraft with bad aerodynamic characteristics as long as we were protected from the consequences.
Now we have fly by wire aircraft with their C* (attitude stable) and C*U (speed stable) control laws that have permitted straight forward implementation of flight management systems, but what have we lost? Could it be that the smarts that used to be built into the basic airframe design that limited control authority to that which was necessary for the worst condition, (full flaps and forward cg in the case of nose up authority) didn't make the migration into a little black box because it was too hard to do so? That is what I think happened in the A330 Alt 2 law THS limits.

Glad Rag, look over in the Tech AF447 thread for the sidestick diagram.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 21:27
  #1287 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,279
I allways cringe when I hear something discounted as "that's a 1 in a million scenario". If you do the math on departures per year one in a million is a bit on the low side...
depends on the consequences

It it were to be a 100% probability that the consequences would result in an inability to complete a safe flight and landing (somewhere) I would agree with you.

Typically the 1 in a million failure category still has other systems available to get you back on the ground 9 out of 10 times.

In the long run it's easier to work this 9 out of 10 back up redundancy than to try to make a ten fold improvement in the original malfunction causes
lomapaseo is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 21:54
  #1288 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 80
Posts: 1,689
Glad rag,
You'll find it at AF447 thread no.7 page 27 post 523.
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 22:05
  #1289 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
I think there is a 100% probability that if 100 airliners lost airspeed at 35,000 ft all of them would end up the same way if you pulled full back and held it for over 3 minutes. All pilots but one would have held attitude and power and survived.

One pulled full back and crashed. The others aviated as trained. Seems simple to me. We don't need better automation, we need better pilots. How are the new hires today doing? Can they hand fly or is that not required any more?
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 22:32
  #1290 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 806
Originally Posted by DC-ATE View Post
Maybe not so much sidestick vs yoke, but FBW vs Direct Control.
I gave a list of stalls (off top of my head) that were mostly not sidestick and not FBW but all (I think) involved pilots pulling back in reponse to stall warning.

I quote an investigation report of inappropriate response to stall warning that states that pilots were not trained in stall recovery and that this was a "minor safety issue".

I say it'll carry on until it's acknowledged that pilots pulling back in a stall is a major problem, and you come back with "it's a FBW problem".

Meanwhile others post stuff like "None of us in any Boeing would have stalled". [ yeah and the Ethiopian guys were shot down ].

Q.E.D.


You can open your eyes and mind to the real problem, or carry on believing the engineers have screwed up between the stick and the surfaces and there's no problem between the stick and the chair, carry on stalling, carry on pulling back, carry on dying. Gotta keep the accident investigtors in a job...
infrequentflyer789 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2012, 22:48
  #1291 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
I think it is the most basic thing a pilot learns is stall recovery. It is so simple, release back pressure and if necessary push forward. If a pilot doesn't know that he isn't a pilot, he is a robot. Unfortunately some Airbus pilots have become robots that can't fly any more without a computer to do what they ask it to do.. SAD
bubbers44 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 01:31
  #1292 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by HN39
Maybe so, BUT ... would the sidestick input alone not have kept the airplane in the stall?
No auto trim up trap and a much better chance to improve things, intentionally or not :
Originally Posted by DW 7th Nov 2011
The aircraft wanted to nose down and recover itself.
The nose wanted to come down naturally if I released pressure for even a split-second.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 04:24
  #1293 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 514
MACHINBIRD

Another weakness of the design. A large transport aircraft should need two hands to hold it in a stall, not a crooked pinky finger.
That is where you are totally wrong. Tried it in the sim and it takes great effort on the sidestick and and effort that has to be maintained!!

but it loses natural speed stability and requires increased attentiveness/awareness in manual flight-or an automatic speed control system.
Wrong again it makes it more stable.
iceman50 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 08:55
  #1294 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Thanks Hazel, thanks very much!

glad rag is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 12:30
  #1295 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,939
Originally Posted by iceman50
That is where you are totally wrong. Tried it in the sim and it takes great effort on the sidestick and and effort that has to be maintained!!
I did here.

No effort at all on the sidestick to hold in the stall ... the almost full NU trim was taking care of it.
Apparently, same thing happened for AF447, THS was already at 13 degrees up when full back stick was maintained.
That undesirable auto trim operation has played a crucial role in the outcome of AF447.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 17:01
  #1296 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Cornwall-on-Hudson, New York
Posts: 877
Can they hand fly or is that not required any more?
A good friend of mine, president of our local Tuskegee Airmen chapter, is a check airman for Continental on 737-800s. He told me the other day that he encourages pilots to hand-fly an entire arrival and approach whenever possible.
stepwilk is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 17:39
  #1297 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 40
Report: Cobham B712 at Kalgoorlie on Oct 13th 2010, stick shaker on two approaches

Now what? Redesign the B717-200? Expend gazillions of $ so the FMC/FMS warns the pilots when they introduce/punch the wrong/bogus data?

The buck has to stop somewhere and the sooner the better.

Cheers,
VGCM66 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 18:53
  #1298 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 77
Posts: 1,330
Originally posted by CONF iture;

Apparently, same thing happened for AF447, THS was already at 13 degrees up when full back stick was maintained.
That undesirable auto trim operation has played a crucial role in the outcome of AF447.
Which was supported by Owain Glyndwr's theoretical analysis - in part...
The nose was being held up by the application of elevator.

Of course, the THS setting made the elevator's job easier, and if the THS had been (sensibly in my view) restricted to 3 deg the eventual AOA would have been lower, How much lower you can get from the first chart - with 3 deg THS and 30 deg elevator you could expect to arrive at 35 deg AOA - big deal! - you are still well stalled and although the descent would have been shallower the end would have been the same unless he had recognised early on that he was in a stall.
mm43 is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 21:11
  #1299 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 78
Posts: 1,458
Quote:Machinbird
Another weakness of the design. A large transport aircraft should need two hands to hold it in a stall, not a crooked pinky finger.
Originally Posted by Iceman
That is where you are totally wrong. Tried it in the sim and it takes great effort on the sidestick and and effort that has to be maintained!!
Quote:
but it loses natural speed stability and requires increased attentiveness/awareness in manual flight-or an automatic speed control system.

Originally Posted by Iceman
Wrong again it makes it more stable.
Iceman.
My first impression was that you had done your sim evaluation in a Boeing type sim, but I see you list yourself as a 'Bus pilot, seat 0A, so will give you the benefit of the doubt.

It takes effort to hold the stick back in the 'Bus to get the nose up, but once it is there sufficiently high, and the trim runs up, it takes little effort as Confiture describes.

Do not confuse the ease of holding an airspeed in your 'Bus due to the attitude stability with possession of natural speed stability. Your 'Bus is a C* aircraft and is attitude stable, not speed stable. That got AF447 into trouble in Alt 2 law. Once the nose got pointed well up into the sky that aircraft was going to decelerate, even with no further stick input, and the trim was going to run up to the limits in blind obedience-no protections.

If you don't believe me, try flying the 'Bus sim at 12-15 degrees nose up in Alt2 law at altitude. Once there, it won't make a difference what you do with the power. As long as you keep your hands off the pitch input, that aircraft will decel to the stall and keep on decelerating, and the trim will run as far up as it can.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 11th Feb 2012, 22:42
  #1300 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,561
We can never make an aircraft idiot proof. No matter how they try Airbus won't either. Basic airmanship like back 20 years ago will get you out of most anything. Just make pilots the same quality we had 20 years ago and we won't have this type of screw up. Stop the pilot mills and start making real pilots again. I know this will piss a lot of people off but it needs to be done.
bubbers44 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.