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

AF 447 Thread No. 7

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

AF 447 Thread No. 7

Old 12th Nov 2011, 18:28
  #141 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Originally Posted by Organfreak
A side note, if anyone is interested.
- yes, I am. Are they suggesting you do not, in fact, play the jazz Hammond organ?

There is a slight problem here on PPRuNe in that the content of Private Messages should be so, but I don't think there is any etiquette preventing you from telling us who is sending them? Perhaps then they could speak out here with their doubts rather than filling your inbox.

We might even be able to help with the 'unknown parties'
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 18:43
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Off the plot? Singing from different Hymnals? Who are these Shepherds of group think?
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 18:45
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Coming back from the "dead" (I prefer resting ) to point out that Lyman has received no PMs whatsoever from me for a considerable time. Organfreak has received none from me full stop.

Old Carthusian has oversimplified to the point of making an incorrect assertion, but that doesn't invalidate what he's saying. The problem is, so has Lyman - "Commanding a dive" is a completely incorrect description for what autoflight was doing, which was attempting to hold altitude in turbulent conditions.

Organfreak, let's be clear here - I'm not saying that the pilots were incompetent and I'm not saying the software or design is perfect. I'm saying that this incident appears to be caused by a systemic problem when it comes to training, as well as a significant safety blind spot when it comes to how AF was rostering flights once the UAS problem was known and highlighted. I get annoyed with the yoke/sidestick argument because it is a *distraction* - there is no quantitative evidence to suggest it would have made a difference, and what we have is a few posters (not all of whom are pilots) with an axe to grind trying to make the argument all about them and their prejudice.

TTex600, air data has been processed on its way to the gauges for as long as gauges have been around. Whether the processing was mechanical, electric analogue or digital, it has been done - the only way to provide a direct translation would be to blast the pilot in the face with air channeled from the outside. All the indications so far indicate that the standby (ISIS) panel was working for everything except speed (and the speed came back later in the sequence). You know you can see it fairly clearly from either seat. Even if the RHS lost all air data (airspeed and altitude), he'd still have had the attitude indicator and should have been able to read the standby. If he didn't feel confident with the information he had, the correct thing to do would have been to hand over control.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 18:46
  #144 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
In reply to BOAC

BOAC done wrote:
Are they suggesting you do not, in fact, play the jazz Hammond organ?

There is a slight problem here on PPRuNe in that the content of Private Messages should be so, but I don't think there is any etiquette preventing you from telling us who is sending them? Perhaps then they could speak out here with their doubts rather than filling your inbox.

We might even be able to help with the 'unknown parties'
Thanks you so much, sir, for your interest. (I don't expect much interplay from you-all, since I have no standing as a pilot.)

First, that's the oddest part: they haven't questioned my status as a jazz organ expert (if you can play good jazz organ at speed, you can keep a large jet flying too, I always say, ha ha), but rather, the weirdest series of msgs. was insisting that I was hiding my identity and it was time to reveal "who [I] really am." I also hesitated to post any of this publicly, but that user's nym is KBPsen. I looked at one or two of his/her posts, and saw that they also had clashed with Dozy, which was even more puzzling to me. I finally sent my real name, location, and website to this person, as I have nothing to hide, and those messages stopped.
Lately I had a mysterious note from a "The Barber" warning me that someone was impersonating me here(!!!) ME??? WHY? Creepy that he had my "official" email address rather than the one I use for this forum.
Sorry to others for this diversion.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 18:58
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
@ Dozy

Organfreak, let's be clear here - I'm not saying that the pilots were incompetent and I'm not saying the software or design is perfect. I'm saying that this incident appears to be caused by a systemic problem when it comes to training, as well as a significant safety blind spot when it comes to how AF was rostering flights once the UAS problem was known and highlighted.
I do appreciate your attempt to clarify your views, and that gives me the opportunity to apologize if I was harsh with you. I don't disagree with any of the above, except your apparent view that the accident had only one cause. I can never keep my mouth shut when I see over-simplification (IMO). Clearly, there was a training problem, and horrible/non-existent CRM.

I get annoyed with the yoke/sidestick argument because it is a *distraction* - there is no quantitative evidence to suggest it would have made a difference, and what we have is a few posters (not all of whom are pilots) with an axe to grind trying to make the argument all about them and their prejudice.
Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that it would not have helped in this situation. YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT! Do I get to take this point? I repeat an earlier utterance: As a SLF, I want my plane to be as foolproof as humanly possible! No-one is suggesting that, based on one accident, SSs should be ripped out and replaced with yokes, fer cryin' out loud.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 19:34
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
Originally Posted by Organfreak View Post
I do appreciate your attempt to clarify your views, and that gives me the opportunity to apologize if I was harsh with you.
No problem, accepted.

I don't disagree with any of the above, except your apparent view that the accident had only one cause.
I was kind of hoping that the word "systemic" would imply that I think the causes are myriad in number as opposed to just one, which is indeed the case.

Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that it would not have helped in this situation. YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT!
Let's be clear here - I'm saying that based on the evidence we can't know one way or the other and it's a purely speculative exercise. I think you'll find that it's the vocally pro-yoke guys who are insisting that it would have made all the difference.

No-one is suggesting that, based on one accident, SSs should be ripped out and replaced with yokes, fer cryin' out loud.
You'd be surprised, and that's all I'll say.

As for wanting aircraft to be foolproof, they've come a long way over the last 50 years and it has proved to be a mixed blessing in a few ways, because as aircraft have become more reliable, a serious systems failure can become more of a psychological shock to the pilot when it does occur. The B757, for example, had an unprecedented safety record for a short to medium-haul narrowbody until the mid-90s, when two minor maintenance errors led to loss-of-control and a crash. This is why I'm inclined to focus on improvements in training, because ultimately even with improvements in automation and technical reliability the pilot is the last link in the chain and must be prepared.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 19:42
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
'Unknown Parties' Green is OT

BOAC said:
We might even be able to help with the 'unknown parties'
OK, in further developments, the 'Barber' person who's been messaging me apparently does mean well towards me and his warning was, I guess, friendly. The person who put the weirdness up HIS nose (by email) turns out to be a former user here who went by the handle "airfoilmod." I found a brief discussion, in the archives, of his disappearance from here. Funnily enough, BOAC was involved in that discussion. I guess I'm not concerned any more about proving my bonafides: I have no bonafides! And I have said so! I guess THAT is what some people cannot wrap their minds around.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 19:46
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
Dozy wrote:
As for wanting aircraft to be foolproof, they've come a long way over the last 50 years and it has proved to be a mixed blessing in a few ways, because as aircraft have become more reliable, a serious systems failure can become more of a psychological shock to the pilot when it does occur.
I couldn't agree more! Have a cigar!
Organfreak is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 20:38
  #149 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
I seem to recall that "airfoilmod"' disappeared' at his/her own request some time ago.

Funny old world. Brush it off. We are happy you are here. If you are 'hiding', you are not alone.
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 20:53
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 57
Posts: 246
Dozy, the ISIS is just a mini EFIS, supplied with data from the same computers and symbol generators as everything else the pilots could see. Why do you keep mis-characterizing my postings?
TTex600 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 21:04
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,182
I'm pretty sure that the data source for ISIS is selectable, just as the standby instruments were in the steam gauge days. You seem to be concerned that there is a computer involved - why? The computer is not generating the data for the EFIS, it is merely translating it for display.

In the case of my experience, the ADC on my side was failed, and the ISIS was taking it's information from the Captain's ADC, which was why I could read it.
DozyWannabe is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 21:07
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Lower Skunk Cabbageland, WA
Age: 69
Posts: 354
Thanks, BOAC, you are a Mensch. Let me ride on your next flight.
I may be one of the few here who is NOT hiding! End of thread excursion.
Organfreak is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 21:21
  #153 (permalink)  
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,584
Thank you, freaky.

Now, as the man says, back on track. While I can perhaps understand the change of 'Air Data', I cannot remember if, in all the SS stirring that seems to have taken place here, anyone clearly told us why the PF's 'ATT/HDG' was changed to 'FO on 3' where I think it stayed and what that would have done in the circumstances?
BOAC is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 21:21
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: BOQ
Age: 75
Posts: 485
BOAC: I think ATPL & 'retired' will thwart most Nigerian bank scam artists.

Then we both agree that both elevators should show a full down deflection.
CONF: I generally agree with most of what you post also (not everything of course, being a pilot ). You can tell an actual 330 pilot (but as the old joke goes, you can't tell him much). I appreciate your general objective outlook & knowledge.

On the technical side, if the Flight Data block did not display a green or amber 0.XX 'G' indication (something less than 1 'G') and result in nose down movement as one would expect with a full nose down SS command, then at least as far as the simulation, overall pitch authority appears to be lacking at this point. If full nose down SS did not move the nose down, I would also make the assumption that neutral SS independent of pilot input would not have resulted in nose down? Can the gross effect on aero AOA be indirectly inferred from the lack of change in pitch and the same lack of change in the Flight Data displayed (or in the case of 1 'G' probably not displayed) inertial load factor?

I think objective discussions of Phase 3, both aircraft and human factors, & simulation overall are not unreasonable discussion items as references to both are contained in Interim #3 (somewhat extensive when it comes to Phase 3), although, as others, even with what was reported available I subjectively feel Phase 3 should never have been entered. Aircraft handling comparisons borne of 320 or other aircraft experience are interesting at least, possibly valid at best, but unsubstantiated to varying degrees.

(These internet discussions of accidents provide certain educational value and a dubious 'entertainment' experience that obviously does not in anyway substitute for an in-depth accident investigation being conducted by true experts, nor diminish the tragedy of the whole thing.)

There are posters (not you) who 'define' themselves into unassailable positions of no practical value. There's a lot to be learned here I feel, but certainly not as much as is to be learned from the actual investigation. Everyone here, bona fides or not, is I would think entitled to a spirited aviation discussion. Discriminating is the watch word.

(BTW, many standard training simulators (sim only feature) incorporate the capability to selectively artificially monitor, for example, flight data package AOA & beta or other selectable parameters where normally VOR DME 1 & 2 would be displayed on the ND. This can at times be educational also, at least to a 'sim-geek'.)


EDIT: For TTex, even with triple ADR failure and multiple electrical failures you will still have an ISIS.
OK465 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 22:03
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by BOAC View Post
…. Personally I am relieved to see that the Old Carthusians appear to have no connection with aviation.

Based on permanent distortions, wrong associations of terms, and misrepresentation of technical terms of text of my posts, as well as simply wrong technical statements, your conclusion seem to apply/extend to engineering as well

Originally Posted by Old Carthusian View Post
……. I am guilty of abbreviating far too much and being too wooly in my terminology….
I assume based on the posts that drove to this one, that it is not necessary to ask the stop of the twisting, distorting, and misrepresenting of the text of my posts.

Japan is also known as the “land of the rising Sun”, so there may be a language interpretation and translation element involved, as well as the possible difference between the meaning of certain words in regular language versus technical language. While that’s an additional excuse, it is also an additional reason to be more careful, particularly in fields that are not fully familiar.
airtren is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 22:11
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 80
Posts: 1,689
Originally Posted by BOAC
anyone clearly told us why the PF's 'ATT/HDG' was changed to 'FO on 3' where I think it stayed
Some 90 secs later the CAPT PFD was switched to ADR3 and ATT/HDG3 and the FO back on 2.
HazelNuts39 is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 22:14
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,123
Is this some evidence of looking for some clues? Some trustworthy ones?

Must have been some ride.
Lyman is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 23:29
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 195

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe;Post=135 View Post

And airtren, could you be more specific with the "manufacturer problems", because outside of the pitot tubes, I don't see any.
I will gladly answer....

But, you have some questions or invitations to answer in your input queue, from my posts, which you have not answered yet.

Please process that, before I add another post of mine to that queue.


Originally Posted by DozyWannabe;Post=143 View Post
... and I'm not saying the software or design is perfect.
Text marked in bold indicate a contradiction from one post to another…. so which one is be taken as TRUE?

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe;Post=143 View Post
I get annoyed with the yoke/sidestick argument because it is a *distraction* - there is no quantitative evidence to suggest it would have made a difference, and what we have is a few posters (not all of whom are pilots) with an axe to grind trying to make the argument all about them and their prejudice.
You’ve skipped a direct invitation of answering on “the lack in the cockpit of visual contact with the SS, or the actions on SS”, which may have helped you get out of the monotony of your “yoke/ss argument” annoyance.

But maybe that annoyance is welcome, as it is the feed to posting the obsessive instance of one of the "anti-Airbus brigade", or "axe to grind.. with Airbus", or something to that effect....

Originally Posted by DozyWannabe;Post=146 View Post
As for wanting aircraft to be foolproof, they've come a long way over the last 50 years and it has proved to be a mixed blessing in a few ways, because as aircraft have become more reliable, a serious systems failure can become more of a psychological shock to the pilot when it does occur. …. This is why I'm inclined to focus on improvements in training, because ultimately even with improvements in automation and technical reliability the pilot is the last link in the chain and must be prepared.
Any system failure or system weakness exposed by an accident, which otherwise would not be known, MUST continue to be the focus of fixing, or being eliminated, as to bring that airplane back in line with its expected safety standard behavior before this exposure.

Last edited by airtren; 13th Nov 2011 at 00:24.
airtren is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 23:39
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Who or what did the switching? (No agenda here, just interested/learning.)

Chris N (who is who he says he is, and has not misrepresented his experience or qualifications – but has not previously mentioned a few years past experience also in a major aero engine company, because it is not particularly relevant or illuminating in this context.)
chrisN is offline  
Old 12th Nov 2011, 23:53
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,158
as to bring that airplane back in line with its expected safety standard behavior.
You got me here

What exactly is out of line with the aircraft and its expected standard of safety?

Is it a design fault that was missed in certification?

Is it a manufacturing fault that was missed in Quality Control?

Is it a wear out mode fault that was missed in maintenance?


no doubt there are one or two items in the pot of causal factors, but unless you delinate them it will sound like just another bash the product claim just because it sounds good..
lomapaseo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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