AF447 final crew conversation - Thread No. 1
All the pro's know what happened.
To dismiss this as pilot error is to abandon thirty-odd years of Human Factors wisdom that has done a very great deal to promote flying safety [best summarised as "if we don't know why they did that we dont know it can't happen again"] , and to go back to the bad old days of "blame and move on".
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stall warning went on (continuous) at about 2:10:50, at that point the command and elevator were nose up.
From that point the nose was never "pushed" down - the elevators never went nose down let alone trim. Slightly less nose-up was commanded briefly but not enough to even push the elevators through neutral. And nowhere is there any indication they knew they were stalled let alone were pushing to recover from it.
Thinking that the on-off stall warning, when the plane is far beyond any tested envelope, caused the problem missed the point that the only reason they got so far stalled is that they pulled up, hard, despite (or in response to) continuous stall warning.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A33Zab;
Three questions RE your post #1120 explaining the BUSS scale:
1. The red upper area corresponds to CAS > VFE. Assuming that VFE is flap limit speed, would that be Vmo/Mmo in clean configuration?
2. The red lower area corresponds to CAS < VLS?
3. At the bottom of your post you write:
Does the BUSS take Mach effect into account?
Three questions RE your post #1120 explaining the BUSS scale:
1. The red upper area corresponds to CAS > VFE. Assuming that VFE is flap limit speed, would that be Vmo/Mmo in clean configuration?
2. The red lower area corresponds to CAS < VLS?
3. At the bottom of your post you write:
but the AOA limit (in Alternate and Direct Law) is a function of MACH, ...
"if we don't know why they did that
we dont know it can't happen again"
we dont know it can't happen again"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Quote:
Originally Posted by fantom
It's the arrow.
Up? What am I supposed to do?
The arrows appear to be an unfortunate choice of shape.
Originally Posted by fantom
It's the arrow.
Up? What am I supposed to do?
The arrows appear to be an unfortunate choice of shape.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 25th Jan 2012 at 16:48.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EDIT:: The graph presented in this post has been deleted. New information posted by A33Zab in post #1185 has invalidated the assumptions used in the graph.
Last edited by HazelNuts39; 26th Jan 2012 at 16:16.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 81
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by HazelNuts39
Would this be better? >>>
Now all they need is to visually separate the upper Red area from the lower Red area so that someone walking in on a situation cannot possibly get the two confused.
Maybe a different color, or stripes?
Too bad you weren't on the original design team for that item.
On the AOA chart following, the brief bump in the fast direction had to be turbulence. That is the kind of thing you would visually average out.
The BUSS indication probably moves around more than airspeed indications do but it is still a valuable indication.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chevrons in the direction of the 'arrow'?
EDIT :: After considering A33Zab's post #1184, the graphic originally posted here has been removed.
Last edited by mm43; 26th Jan 2012 at 17:28. Reason: removed graphic.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@HN39:
Three questions RE your post #1120 explaining the BUSS scale:
3. At the bottom of your post you write:
Does the BUSS take Mach effect into account?
3. At the bottom of your post you write:
but the AOA limit (in Alternate and Direct Law) is a function of MACH, ...
I've to revise that one, with the - AOA limit - I meant to say AOAsw (stall warning)
and for your information, I found today, switching to the BUSS comes with a backup stall warning too.
based on Flap/Slat configuration only and NOT MACH.
Seems to be logical since you switched of all AIR DATA.
With S/F retracted the AOAsw is 8.6° while in CONFIG FULL it will be 13.6°.
The FCOM:
The backup speed scale is based upon AOA and depends on the Flap/Slat configuration.
1// The RED FAST area: Indicates the excessive speed range.
2// The AMBER 'fast' area: is representing excessive speed range
while keeping an appropiate margin to the maxium structual speeds.
3// The GREEN area indicates the safe speed range.
4// The GREEN Target symbol: This symbol indicates the optimum target speed.
5// The YELLOW line: This fixed reference line, next to a yellow triangle, indicates the aircraft's current speed.
6// The AMBER 'slow' area: indicates too low speed while keeping a appropiate margin to the stall speed.
7// The RED SLOW area: indicates the speeds that are lower than the stall speed.
I did send you some detailed information for your valuable graphs.
Last edited by A33Zab; 25th Jan 2012 at 23:54. Reason: New information.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd also maybe want to look at some sort of graduated marking such that you get feedback that your actions are in the right direction even if you've managed to get the green off the end of the screen. A non-moving needle over a moving solid red (or even red-white check) background doesn't tell you much.
From a UI point of view, I'd also raise concern over "slow" and "fast". Icons, colours, arrows ok, english text - not so ok. Yes, I know everyone at the pointy end is fully trained in ICAO level-whatever english, but this isn't an interface for situation-normal with all user brain functions working in calm non-panic mode.
I have similar concern about stall warning being an aural "stall"... stick shaker requires no translation.
I think the HF report is going to be interesting, and I think speed tape (normal vs. alt) is going to be in there - they might not consider the BUSS UI. That report is also considerably overdue now (from the estimate they gave). I don't think it is going to be short.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: invalid value
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much ado.
There will be partial green and all amber showing whenever the tape is at extreme ends, not full red.
This isn't a display that jumps out of nowhere to everyone's surprise, it comes at the end of a checklist after an unreliable airspeed condition have been identified and acted upon.
Keep it simple.
This isn't a display that jumps out of nowhere to everyone's surprise, it comes at the end of a checklist after an unreliable airspeed condition have been identified and acted upon.
Keep it simple.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
chrisN said:
Well, let's think this through:
Who here would elect to do that? Somebody on their own volition, or "by committee"? There is very little consensus here, even after all that's been written, with the possible exception of: the pilots did not recognize the stall, and even that much is not entirely agreed upon, judging from some of the more crude comments.
Having said that, IMO, there's ZERO chance that these threads aren't being read by at least a few members of those organizations. Also zero chance that we would ever know who. It would be a PR disaster if word ever got out that "they" were listening to "us." All we are doing is speculating based on the published evidence, and even beyond that. They are going to have to draw conclusions from the available facts and make determinations based on their analyses, not from ours. Also, even if they do determine that the pilots' confusion was based partly on weaknesses in the interface, I'd be surprised if they would go so far as to redesign the displays, inasmuch as that would be a frank admission of liability. (Hope I'm wrong.)
If there are flaws in my summation of this issue, discuss, argue!
Is there any intention to submit these suggestions to BEA or Airbus?
Who here would elect to do that? Somebody on their own volition, or "by committee"? There is very little consensus here, even after all that's been written, with the possible exception of: the pilots did not recognize the stall, and even that much is not entirely agreed upon, judging from some of the more crude comments.
Having said that, IMO, there's ZERO chance that these threads aren't being read by at least a few members of those organizations. Also zero chance that we would ever know who. It would be a PR disaster if word ever got out that "they" were listening to "us." All we are doing is speculating based on the published evidence, and even beyond that. They are going to have to draw conclusions from the available facts and make determinations based on their analyses, not from ours. Also, even if they do determine that the pilots' confusion was based partly on weaknesses in the interface, I'd be surprised if they would go so far as to redesign the displays, inasmuch as that would be a frank admission of liability. (Hope I'm wrong.)
If there are flaws in my summation of this issue, discuss, argue!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So we haven't gone far enough. Now we will hire inexperienced pilots like the Af447 flt crew and just say push or pull so they will know what to do? Why don't airlines just hire qualified pilots and the problem is solved.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 74
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, bubbers, I think that AF447 demonstrates that there is a problem with how "qualified" is being defined these days, both by some penny-pinching airlines, and even the regulatory authorities as well, since they have allowed this.
I'm hoping for a drastic re-definition of the term "qualified."
I'm hoping for a drastic re-definition of the term "qualified."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, bubbers, I think that AF447 demonstrates that there is a problem with how "qualified" is being defined these days, both by some penny-pinching airlines, and even the regulatory authorities as well, since they have allowed this.
I'm hoping for a drastic re-definition of the term "qualified."
I'm hoping for a drastic re-definition of the term "qualified."
"There was in command of AF447 a crew with competency"