Lyman

Egan added that Horizon is replacing the fittings with ones that don't require such frequent inspections.

Anybody here ever notice an operator seeking applause after the fact, for what needed to be done as part of their work, before the fact?

Dozy, stop with the coy... You try to consistently conflate irrelevance with procedures....

DozyWannabe

Please elaborate. As far as I know, you stated that without exception, a junior PF will relinquish control to a senior PNF as soon as the latter's hand touches the controls, to which I expressed doubt.

You also stated that there would never be a "tug-of-war" on the yoke. I simply provided one example (and looked up some others, made some notes) of where that was precisely what happened.

Prior to that I stated that the Airbus flight deck provides a way of locking out a wayward PF that is impossible with connected yokes - but for whatever reason on two ocasions where it would have been helpful, it wasn't used.

I've already said that CONF makes good points about tactile response being a positive aspect of the yoke design, and provided examples of where the sidestick arrangement has positives over the yoke from a safety/piloting perspective.

I've stated categorically that I don't consider one better than the other, and that both have benefits and drawbacks.

Tell me where I'm going wrong here, because I can't see it.

PJ2

Dozy;
I agree. I recall that there was at least one suicide over the outfall of 261.

Clearly here, money has a longer shadow than memory of how and why things went wrong.

The problem with constant change at the top is that memory disappears with people who have moved on but the pressure for profit is inherited but without the history. The usual obvious "solutions" are invoked.

You not only have to come clean you have to be clean to start with but the problems are not sourced nor resident in individual airlines. The same sources that are now being discussed in the popular press regarding families under enormous financial stress (sometimes resulting in violence) are not that different from the financial forces that cause ordinarily rational people to compromise their own long-held professional or management values especially if one's job is on the line due to performance pressures. Standards cost, one way or another.

PJ2

Lyman

You have a habit of oscillating between big picture, small picture, and enlisting absolutes if necessary to distract from a currently well framed discussion. We were discussing 447, and Lufty/Hamburg. Up jumps Egypt, and Lyman is in the weeds.

Simples. LH Captain/F/O dynamic with yokes: "Fräulein, Geben sie mir"
"Naturlich, Kaptain"...... Sharklet remains virgin. Ja?

Because her yoke is visible, the commander acts quickly, and there is no cross command, IMHO.

They hadn't jihadists aboard, and the Captain was not wearing an hatchet handle out his skull, nicht wahr?

Klaar?

mm43

This ongoing Yoke v SS argument is IMHO not relevant to the loss of AF447. Why? Because in this case other factors were at work, i.e.

• Lack of CRM,
• Lack of communication,
• Lack of knowledge,
• Lack of relevant training, and
• Failure to follow SOPs.

Yes, it may have helped the situation if the SS position was being displayed on the PFDs, but it wasn't and with all the other problems just listed, there is no guarantee that the outcome would have been much different. To give Capt Dubois some credit, I suspect that if he had seen the SS position floating up high on the overly blue PFDs on his return to the cockpit, in all probability he would have regained the LHS and done something about it.

I raised the issue of the "Iron Cross" displaying when in ground mode, and the possibility of it being displayed in flight mode when the A/P is disconnected in AF447 Thread No.3. CON fiture disagreed at the time, but if it were displayed, it would certainly identify the "mayonnaise makers" whether SIM borne or airborne.

My only other suggestion is that the color of the cross change to orange for dual inputs and to red if priority control has been taken.

Lyman

Hmmm.... Not relevant? Not contributory in any way shape or form?

That is quite a relief.

Done then, with the SS issue. No complaints.

, I suspect that if he had seen the SS position floating up high on the overly blue PFDs on his return to the cockpit, in all probability he would have regained the LHS and done something about it.

He didn't have to, he had just climbed an aisle canted at 16 degrees, uphill...

mm43. What color if mayonnaise? (rate)

DozyWannabe

Which highlight shortcomings in the Airbus sidestick system when used improperly...

Which highlights shortcomings with connected yokes...

So you only want to talk about things that the sidestick detractors agree with. With you. I respectfully decline.

It would have worked the same if the override system had been used properly with sidesticks. The issue is using the tools to hand *correctly*. Done properly with the sidestick or yoke system, there'd have been no issue. The problem was that the system was used incorrectly, and could have been used incorrectly no matter what the control method.

Opinion yes. It's not a certainty.

El-Batouti was no jihadist - he was a man with financial problems who'd just been disqualified from transatlantic routes.

mm43 - I agree absolutely it's irrelevant here, but sadly we're at that point on the hamster wheel again.

I disagree that having the SS position indicator on the PFD would help particularly though. The reason I disagree is because there have been too many incidents where the yoke position has been ignored during a pressure situation - I really don't think it's as big a deal as some make it out to be. The Captain of AF447 didn't put the evidence of roll and pitch instability plus a rapidly unwinding altimeter together in time, so all a position indicator would likely have done would be to have contributed to information overload. Besides, in the A320 sim, standing over the centre console I could see enough of the sidesticks to judge position to some degree - and I'm not a tall guy!

Based on what I know I can only conclude that sidestick position is a red herring here. The PNF could have locked the PF out at any point and didn't - he seemed unsure as to whether he had the authority to do so and was waiting for the Captain. When he arrived, the Captain's first action was to take the troubleshooting phase back to square one, which cost them more time than they had. Judging by the CVR, the PNF had a handle on what was wrong from the outset and consistently showed better judgment than the PF. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he lacked the confidence to act directly on what he believed to be the best course of action.

mm43

LymanPurple!

Lyman

Mais non. Blanc.

mm43

DozyWannabeNeither did he have the "blls" to appraise Dubois on what had happened in the past 1 - 2 minutes.

DozyWannabe

Exactly - that worries me far more than the sidestick or automation debate.

Lyman

...the PNF had a handle on what was wrong from the outset .... for whatever reason, he lacked the confidence to act directly on what he believed to be the best course of action......

mm43.....
Neither did he have the "blls" to appraise Dubois on what had happened in the past 1 - 2 minutes.

Both you guys are confident PNF actually knew what had been happening?
See, when BEA flesh out the CVR, I think HF will take front and center. PNF may only appear to have a handle on the moment, we'll just have to see....

Doze, I really have to call bs on your comment. "...he lacked the confidence to act directly...etc." Embarrassingly presumptuous, IMO.

DozyWannabe

He told the PF to stop climbing, told him not to deploy speedbrakes and during the few seconds he had control tried to get the nose down. He seems to have figured out what was happening - why he didn't communicate this is one for the BEA HF bods.

@Lyman, I'm only going on the information in front of me. Every call he made prior to the Captain's arrival was correct, and yet he seems to have felt he had to wait for the captain rather than put his foot down and take control himself. I'm no expert, but it reads a lot like lack of confidence to me.

A33Zab

Exact!
I fully agree with you.

Concerning your suggestion, maybe a compromize will be acceptable for CONF?

Show the PF SS on the PNF display, so PF will not be distracted by information he already knows.
The information only shown if SS is moved from neutral so the pop up will trigger the monitoring pilot.

@Lyman:

Once the captain opened the door and sat down,
the SW ceased, all AS were gone (FPV Flags were present when he selected it) - no FD bars and ..... pitch - at that time - returned to even
negative values for approx. 1 minute.

The only clue he had visible was the boxed V/S, the unwinding ALT and very poor briefing.

jcjeant

DW
I think everyone can agree with your analysis
After all you are not the only one to have this view
As there are disadvantages to both .. and if we want to be practical there are two choices:
Either correct the problems on the two or choose to concentrate all efforts on a single
Indeed .. in an effort to standardize it would be smarter to keep for the future a single system that would have been perfect (after the needed corrections)
Indeed .. it is possible to steer a bicycle or a motorcycle with handlebars or a steering wheel
The handlebar was chosen as standard .. and nobody would think to currently building a bike equipped with a steering wheel ....
Hope this made sens ...

DozyWannabe

Why? Things are working as well now as, if not better than when all airliners had yokes, are they not?

If a klutz like me can take off, land and recover from high-altitude stall in an A320 sim on my first or second attempt, then there can't be too much wrong with the setup.

If you can use Windows, you can use MacOS with no real issues. Same if you can drive with the steering wheel on the right as opposed to the left. If you can fly with a yoke you can fly with a sidestick. If both approaches work with no significant impact on safety, there's no compelling reason to standardise on one.

mm43

I think you are heading on the right track.

Basically a software adaption to make use of data already available.

DozyWannabe

If the PNF does not feel they have the authority to override the PF, it makes no difference if they can see the inputs or not. The F/O in the Birgenair 757 crash must have practically had the yoke in his lap and he *still* didn't take control.

The software change mm43 describes wouldn't be difficult to implement, but would it have helped? I'm not convinced.

Lyman

On the contrary, we think PF did NOT know where his SS was, relative to its own index, hence: "inadvertent aft input".

With a proper display of his own input, scratch "inadvertent".

Quote:
Originally posted by A33Zab ...

Show the PF SS on the PNF display, so PF will not be distracted by information he already knows.
The information only shown if SS is moved from neutral so the pop up will trigger the monitoring pilot.

Organfreak

There is no way to know if it would have, or not. But it might have. Isn't that good enough? I think so.