AF447 final crew conversation - Thread No. 1
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing. What makes you think he did not? Seat #2 had no belts attached at impact, why do people assume Captain did not take RHS? Or, for that matter his own seat, #1? How does any of the dialogue disqualify such a supposition?
Last edited by Lyman; 28th Oct 2011 at 20:20.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: invalid value
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SLFinAZ
The CVR has multiple mentions of urgent "requests" to get the nose down.
At no time is there any direct mention of pitch attitude or expressed concern about the pitch attitude.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day the Captains decision to place the least qualified officer on the flight deck "in command" was the critical hole in the cheese (in combination with the CRM deficiencies that precluded the PM from assuming control).
With an aircraft approaching the ITCZ, and with two F/Os of limited nouse, there is no way that captain should have left the flight deck.
Many times have I been in a similar position. I would say, "Oh, I'm not tired, I'll chill out here....", or some such.
I would only ever leave the flight deck if there was at least one 'hairy old SFO' there, and even then ONLY if there were ZERO tech or wx problems.
This captain must have been barking mad to have left the flight deck for his 'rest' whilst the wx radar was a mass of red and purple.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of the several salient FAILS, Aileron Drag, that might be Numero Uno.
+1
BUT, not just to bird dog the FOs. It was the ship that needed tending, also. It may even have been too much for all three. We know that because it was too much for all three at the end. Unless one can pinpoint the transition from sweet to bitchy, the answers are in flow.
imho.
+1
BUT, not just to bird dog the FOs. It was the ship that needed tending, also. It may even have been too much for all three. We know that because it was too much for all three at the end. Unless one can pinpoint the transition from sweet to bitchy, the answers are in flow.
imho.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman, you're right, but if the captain had never left the flight deck, he probably would have prevented the initial pitch up, and would have been 'oriented' as to the developing problem.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: invalid value
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lyman
What makes you think he did not?
mbar, yes at the very end the Captain does mention pitch and commands a specific pitch attitude. However, neither the PF or the PM does despite there being at least 20 major pitch changes of 10 degrees or more with pitch varying between approx -10 to +20 in the 4:30 minutes that elapses from A/P disconnection to impact.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there would have been a relief seat switch anyways, but if the Captain had remained, he still has the chronic problem of the invisible stick, and the PF's screen snafus? Would not PF have been PF anyway?
You're on the money. Had he been in the middle seat, just for a while, I think 447 lands in Paris. He would not have tolerated the confusion and the improper division of skills/responsibilities. That he left as though the challenges were ho-hum was incredibly shortsighted. imo.
Herr Spinkleman: The PF's screen was not recorded, and his apparent confusion suggests he did not have full panel, PLUS, the PNF "I will give you ATT". Why do that, if he had PITCH? Why the stick work that suggests he could not suss PITCH?
You're on the money. Had he been in the middle seat, just for a while, I think 447 lands in Paris. He would not have tolerated the confusion and the improper division of skills/responsibilities. That he left as though the challenges were ho-hum was incredibly shortsighted. imo.
Herr Spinkleman: The PF's screen was not recorded, and his apparent confusion suggests he did not have full panel, PLUS, the PNF "I will give you ATT". Why do that, if he had PITCH? Why the stick work that suggests he could not suss PITCH?
Last edited by Lyman; 28th Oct 2011 at 20:24.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: HK
Posts: 513
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman
For goodness sake give it up! You contradict yourself continually and come up with all these weird and wonderful theories that have no basis in fact. If the PF had NO attitude indicator and STILL kept control then he would have been criminally negligent, there is NO reason nor indication that the PF did NOT have a working PFD.
For goodness sake give it up! You contradict yourself continually and come up with all these weird and wonderful theories that have no basis in fact. If the PF had NO attitude indicator and STILL kept control then he would have been criminally negligent, there is NO reason nor indication that the PF did NOT have a working PFD.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slickster:
I am not buying this theory. Yes I believe that a pilot on your 737 wouldn't do this. But I do not think this relates to AF447.
The PF was confused and he clearly states that he had been pulling back for over 3 minutes. It is hard to believe neither the Captain nor the PM had any idea of these actions and didn't try to correct them. Pulling back a yoke or pulling back a side-stick equal the same action...pulling back! I cant blame the aircraft for this.
Either the PM or the Captain should have clearly directed the PF on what to do, or taken the controls the second the sh#*t started hitting the fan...I would expect this type of response on any type of flight deck.
I find it very difficult to believe that any pilot of my 737 would sit there, for three minutes, with the yoke in his stomach, the stick shaker rattling, and the altimeter unwinding. Boeings have their faults, and all automation has its traps, but this accident does nothing to quell my Luddite fears of Airbus.
The PF was confused and he clearly states that he had been pulling back for over 3 minutes. It is hard to believe neither the Captain nor the PM had any idea of these actions and didn't try to correct them. Pulling back a yoke or pulling back a side-stick equal the same action...pulling back! I cant blame the aircraft for this.
Either the PM or the Captain should have clearly directed the PF on what to do, or taken the controls the second the sh#*t started hitting the fan...I would expect this type of response on any type of flight deck.
Either the PM or the Captain should have clearly directed the PF on what to do, or taken the controls the second the sh#*t started hitting the fan...I would expect this type of response on any type of flight deck.
Last edited by fireflybob; 29th Oct 2011 at 07:47.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: down to earth
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Razorray, good point - have we got too carried away with all the touchy-feely crm stuff? Logic surely says the more experienced FO who was in the seat he was used to should have taken over."
Its been reported that the PF (Bonin, the least experienced) was in the right seat and the PNF (Robert) in the left. Apparently Robert was woken up and then he swapped with Dubois while Bonin stayed in his seat. Presumably Dubois gave Bonin authority because he provided continuity when the crew changed.
Its been reported that the PF (Bonin, the least experienced) was in the right seat and the PNF (Robert) in the left. Apparently Robert was woken up and then he swapped with Dubois while Bonin stayed in his seat. Presumably Dubois gave Bonin authority because he provided continuity when the crew changed.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been reported that the PF (Bonin, the least experienced) was in the right seat and the PNF (Robert) in the left. Apparently Robert was woken up and then he swapped with Dubois while Bonin stayed in his seat. Presumably Dubois gave Bonin authority because he provided continuity when the crew changed.
Continuity? Who needs continuity...the A330 was flying itself...right
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lions Peak
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of speculation. A lot of good guesses. A lot of confusion - not within the flight deck - but within this thread.
What are we going to do about it? Right. Let's try to get things together and wrap it up in a reasonable way. How? Take a look at the end of each and every AAR an there are the most important sentences:
Probable Cause
The [PPRuNe jury] determines that the probable cause of this accident was
- the pilot flying's inappropriate response to ... which led to aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover.
- Contributing to the accident were...
Who want's to give it a try?
Volunteers step forward!
What are we going to do about it? Right. Let's try to get things together and wrap it up in a reasonable way. How? Take a look at the end of each and every AAR an there are the most important sentences:
Probable Cause
The [PPRuNe jury] determines that the probable cause of this accident was
- the pilot flying's inappropriate response to ... which led to aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover.
- Contributing to the accident were...
Who want's to give it a try?
Volunteers step forward!
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lions Peak
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All the more time to put it all in a nutshell...
There are many very good postings all around the whole forum. They are bits and pieces of a broader picture. So why not use this source of "collective intelligence" to have a structured approach to these questions:
- What was the leading cause of the accident?
- What factors were just contributing to it?
...by interpreting what we know so far...
It would be quite interesting to compare the structured opinion of the forum to the final AAR.
There are many very good postings all around the whole forum. They are bits and pieces of a broader picture. So why not use this source of "collective intelligence" to have a structured approach to these questions:
- What was the leading cause of the accident?
- What factors were just contributing to it?
...by interpreting what we know so far...
It would be quite interesting to compare the structured opinion of the forum to the final AAR.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Razoray
Pulling back a yoke or pulling back a side-stick equal the same action...pulling back!
- One is fully obvious to all in the flightdeck.
- The other is simply unvisible to all PNF.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Bangkok,Thailand
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class Y,
We know what happened. The only question is why did the PF pull back the stick. Right now no one knows the answer, and we may never know....
It would be quite interesting to compare the structured opinion of the forum to the final AAR.