BOAC

"Now, you do know that some monkeys have been trained to use them!" - not, apparently, in Air France

Machinbird

AF447's crew needed to have their attention drawn initially to their altitude and then to their pitch attitude. Later, they needed to understand their angle of attack, and finally they needed to understand their Flight Path Vector and the fact that it was pointed at the ground although the nose was pointed up.

I think we (collectively) can figure out ways to draw attention to a particular indication when computers recognize abnormal operation. What we might do to help pilots in general and automation dependent pilots in particular is have another system that helps direct their attention to crucial parameters that need correction. This could be a highly engineered system with the wisdom of a generation of 'old hand' pilots, built into its software. It would monitor the data bus on a modern aircraft and offer subtle cues (or even stronger ones) that would draw attention to out of tolerance parameters to enhance situational awareness.

To those who cry-No, not another %*(#@& system, I say that we are already marching down the automation road, and there is no turning back. Let us at least learn how to make automation more human friendly.

There is no sense in allowing the strong, silent partner in the cockpit to be unable to communicate key information.

BOAC

possibly, but what is wrong with learning to fly as a system? As far as "subtle cues (or even stronger ones)" goes, I would recommend a spring-loaded boxing glove inset into both P1 and P2 main panels with an associated audio 'alors, stupide' and a glass case inside which could be a real pilot for emergency use only, of course.

OK465

It would appear that they prefer the political blog sites and would be unlikely to post to PPRuNe.

But I guess you never know...

RetiredF4

Isnīt that the basic problem of missing airmanship here?
Flying has to do with handling all those items and some others as well in unison, without "target fixation" to a single item. FD bars, FPV, betty bitch, a talking radar altimeter, TAWS, and all those other helpers in a daily pilots life should be exactly that, helpers and not substitutes for bad airmanship.
I know you are familiar with that, our old rhino had nothing of those gimmicks and we did the job and survived like others did. It brings us back to training and expierience. Both seem to be missing big time and will not be restored by another gizmo.

roulishollandais

(bolds are mine)

Yes, as Gums showed us, with air data failure, inertial reference would have been enough to save the lifes.

It also concerns immediate corrections of the A330 software.

But modifications need sometimes more difficulties that seeing things "with a fresh eye" (=>HUD G.KLOPFSTEIN).

A more general problem emerges here : Who is responsible of the flight, the Captain, or the Chief engineer, or the automation analyst, or the manufacturer ?

In AF447 flight that may concern the Court...

OK465

Is this really a 'lack' of airmanship...or a lapse in airmanship...or just circumstantially 'unpredictable' airmanship on the lower part of the deemed acceptable bell curve?

Two of which are genuinely 'out there' at any given time in any given pilot group (or pick your professional group).

You know what they call the guy who graduates last in his medical school class...

Doctor.

RetiredF4

As we talk about 3 guys in the same cockpit with the same symptoms, wouldnīt that qualify as an epidemic event , Mr. Doctor

OK465

Take 2 aspirin and call me in the morning.

(3 ex-Phantom guys & an ex-Harrier guy should not be allowed to discuss airmanship without a referee and a linesman. )

fantom

But FOUR ex-Phantom guys beat 1 Harrier guy hands-down.

Machinbird

OK, that will work in French airliners. What will the English speaking crowd get?

Seriously, with guys flying intercontinental routes and bagging only 5-7 hours of actual stick time a year, do you really expect them to have the touch at 2 am after their handling skills have had a few years to atrophy?

RetiredF4

Imho itīs not a question what we can expect, but what we are entiteled to expect. Those factors should be accounted for by the company, by the training departments and by the regulators. The situation you describe is not an unavoidable must, itīs the unfortunate result of negligence.

Would you like to sit in a cab, where the driver is not used anymore to operate the brakes and the steering wheel?

bubbers44

No would be my answer and letting 300 hr pilots be SIC isn't right, they know nothing about what is happening. Competent pilots would not have crashed that night. Would you pull up into a 17 degree climb at FL350 when your performance data said you couldn't climb? They did.

Organfreak

Thank you. Common sense is always to be applauded.

Ian W

Machinbird
Interestingly, this problem has been foreseen but largely disregarded. If you read https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=h...ises.pdf&pli=1
on automation surprises - you will see echoes of comments here and of the progress of the AFR447 incident. The research was done prior to the AFR447 incident - but as is the case with a lot of human factors research it was not fully believed.

RR_NDB

Machinbird::

To enhance situational awareness

R&D is required to help crew for an improved "scan" (scan of the situation)

IMO this is becoming more complex and AF447 could be a case of "canary in coal mine"

gums

Bubbers said it. They didn't have "performance" data available. They had attitude and a myriad of control law reversions and loss of several of the so-called "protections"

I am a dinosaur like several here. I evolved. I never forgot my basic instrument training and drills and never forgot two thousand hours in single seat jets that had primitive instruments. I also found my HUD flight path marker and the pitch lines very valuable displays to cross check with the steam gauges. Now there was a true performance indicator. Actual flight path with respect to the earth. No need for air data or flight directors or auto-whatever. Keep the damned thing on that big "horizon line" and you didn't climb or descend. Over the ocean or the desert at night, that sucker was invaluable.

As with many here, I have serious problems with the airmanship of the new crop. As a nugget, my instructor would hand me "paste-on" doofers to cover all the intruments except the turn/slip indicator, airspeed and altimiter. Them make me fly an ADF approach at a field. True "needle, ball and airspeed". So I was not a pinball wizard, and I never flew a "flight director" system that provided course interception, bank angle steering, etc.( the A-7D doofer sucked, and no one used it) Even original Viper didn't have that. My HUD video shows what we had - a raw display of ILS centerline and glide path. Was up to me to center all the needles.

So I maintain that a simple HUD with pitch lines and velocity vector would be invaluable in IFR or at night over a dark ocean. It would be especially valuable if HAL deemed all the air data, including AoA, unreliable. Hell, I can still tell that I am climbing or staying level or whatever. Don't need AoA. I can see that I am level and can move stick and throttles to stay on that flight path.

Gotta go before I get carried away

BOAC

- refer 'Retired F4' Post#1391.

mm43

As RetiredF4 says, it is the bottom line!

Tableview

Has anyone seen this conspiracy theory about AF447 being shot down by an Iranian SAM? When I was sent the link I assumed it was a sick joke, I'm still not sure, but it seems this character is serious.

The relevant part starts at 1'20".

Edited to add : For the avoidance of doubt, I think this a load of bull and don't for one nanosecond believe in the theory.