Clandestino

I have misread the tense & the subject of your sentence and understood it wrongly you meant capt Asseline still supports the discredited theories put forward by his legal defense. My apologies. Anyway, those still insisting computers have flown the aeroplane into trees represent interesting case of belief that lawyers provide us with objective aeronautical analysis.

Thanks, where did it come from?

Comma would be far more appropriate as the aeroplane exited the envelope at 2:10:54, thirty two seconds after the CM1 mentioned the alternate law.

jcjeant

Hi,
Clandestino
This investigation has very bad start of a judicial point of view when we know that both flight recorders (CVR and DFDR) disappear that evening of the crash, transported by air by the Director of the DGAC Daniel TENENBAUM without any judicial seal there is affixed by the Prosecutor of Mulhouse, Jean WOLF.
10 days after the accident, the judge Germain Sengelin will questions about the itinerary and location of the two "black boxes". They are going to will have seals, but after ten days without judicial review, it is too late to prevent the suspicion of being born.
So do not be surprised at all that has followed
What would have happened if we had learned that the recorders of AF447 had been recovered but had been for ten days at the hands of investigators without judicial knowledge of it ?

RetiredF4

The question is, and i asked that before: Had the the crew a way to recognize the exact state of ALT Law, in this case ALT2B, which differs significantly from a variety of ALT Laws, and did they?

The listing from Turbine D does not offer any detailed information into what kind of ALT Law the FCS in the mentioned UAS events reverted.

We might as well have here with AF447 the only case, where ALT 2B was triggered and in all other cases more protections had been available. Thus creating a wrong mindset with the PF (...Alt Law, no problem, business as usual...)

HazelNuts39

infrequentflyer789

Try this planet for size:
Boeing pilot (deceased). With yoke. FO didn't intervene either.

And then of course you get the non-boeing pilots who pull the yoke right back on s/w and then pull right through the stick pusher. Again, FO didn't correct.

HazelNuts39

The other crews respected stall warnings and were not relying on the protections.

Linktrained

Thank you for mentioning the F16D as a training aircraft.

I would suppose that Concorde COULD have been used/ MUST have been used, as a "training aircraft" too ! ( Perhaps a little expensive for most beginners...)

The point that I was attempting to make with reference to the DH86b was that positive hand-over of the control was VERY visible to both pilots.

A33Zab

HN39: Thx again!

Considering this as the Proportional and Integrated SS inputs, we need to know values for Ki and Kp to calculate the input to Pitch control channel(THS/Elevator), true or not?

Are you able to extract q(pitch rates) from the pitch traces?

Excuses if you already did before, if so then I've probably missed it.

jcjeant

Hi,

HazelNuts39
Some other did not respect the stall warning (discarded cause believing to be false) .. and you know that (already posted multiple times)

HazelNuts39

A33Zab,

The C* story is probably not as simple as I'm trying to make it. Anyway, I don't think I can get any closer to defining the coefficients.

jcjeant,

Point taken.

Turbine D

Hi Clandestino,
I saved this chart for reference, actually there was a second chart with less detail but the same reported events. It came from a posting back in the 4th or 5th thread, I believe it was a takata posting.

I also saved this which was part of the posting:

HazelNuts39

Turbine D,
Yes, you're right, it was takata on thread #5, post #128.

gums

Thanks for the opportunity, Clan...

I pointed this out early - the jet seems to have an excellent aerodynamic design. No extreme buffet, roll oscillations ( extreme, not the ones we see on the traces), etc.

I imagine the Concorde had the "standard" delta sink rate characteristics as the F-102 and other deltas - a slight buzz and then an unwinding altimeter and great directional control/stability. The buffet and shaking in most swept wing jets of the fighter genre had pronouced buffet and roll/yaw excursions. Ask Retired about the Double Ugly. I could feel the "buzz" in the F-102 as I lost those lifties and drag overcame lift. Many pilots could not, and their first clue was the unwinding altimeter or a sharp drop when in the "flare" ( gear damage was not uncommon).

That being said, I maintain that training for stall recognition and entry is possible, maybe even in the sim. I would advocate a stick shaker, but if your FBW system disregards AoA under certain laws, then that wouldn't work in the real jet, huh? OTOH, certainly the airframe buffet would be different enough from normal turbulence and spoiler deflection, etc. to provide a clue when the instruments are FUBAR. There might be a way to use the data from AF447 to introduce mechanical vibrations in the sim and let the folks "feel" it.

BTW, the Viper family models I flew were the "B" models, as in first ones ever manufactured. Not only were we in tandem cockpit seats, but the stick only moved 1/8 inch! Figuring out what Joe Baggodonuts in the front seat was doing was a bear.

BOAC

I must express some concern. clandestino, that you do not consider

"The pitch attitude changes from
6° nose-down to 13° nose-up in
11 seconds then stabilises at
about 11° nose-up"

to be a rapid change in attitude, nor a pitch attitude peaking at 18 degrees to be 'extreme'?

Both in a heavy jet at high level.

I do. To me that is anything but 'benign'.

TLB

Final report finds pilot error behind Air France crash that killed 228: source
PARIS — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Jul. 04 2012, 1:58 PM EDT
Last updated Wednesday, Jul. 04 2012, 2:19 PM EDT

A French report has found that human error and technical malfunctions caused the 2009 crash of an Air France flight from Rio to Paris that killed 228 people, a source close to the case said Wednesday.

The judicial report – due to be presented to victims’ families on Tuesday next week – has concluded that pilot error and malfunctioning speed sensors were responsible, the source told AFP.

The French aviation safety authority BEA is due Thursday to present its final report on the crash. The paper is eagerly awaited amid a row between Airbus and Air France on who ultimately bears responsibility.

The source said the separate 356-page judicial report found that speed sensors froze up and failed, but also that the “captain had failed in his duties” and “prevented the co-pilot from reacting.”

The aircraft had entered a zone of turbulence two hours into the flight when the autopilot suddenly disengaged, the BEA had said earlier.

French magistrates are investigating Air France and Airbus for alleged manslaughter in connection with the crash, notably because of the malfunctioning speed sensors, known as Pitots.

The airline replaced the Pitots, manufactured by French company Thales, on its Airbus planes with a newer model after the crash.

Victims’s families have previously alleged that the involvement of big French corporations such as Airbus and Air France was influencing the affair.

NeoFit

I may point out to the honorable PPRuners that the initial approval ratification of the aircraft model had been made with probes Goodrich.
It is only afterward that Tales probes were 'approved by equivalence'.

And after june 2009 crash, Goodrich sensors are coming back

jcjeant

Hi,

Well .. another new story
There is no doubt that the accident of AF447 will enter in the list of mythical accidents
BTW .. there are only a few hours to other speculations or last minute findings ..
EDIT:
Neofit
The only genuine link for the report will be tomorrow on the BEA site !

NeoFit

Final report: another Link

A large part of this 'paper' is Why? Why? Why?
The CCS AF serious event is also widely commented

NeoFit

mm43 #1482
Thank you very much to have translated the recommendations following the 1994 Tarom incident report, and much more to have described the brought improvements.

Your conclusion is expressed with a lot of wisdom:

jcjeant
I'll be busy tomorrow
It does not matter, next meeting with #9 thread.

Clandestino

Maybe, maybe not, but given the inputs on the right stick it wouldn't matter anyway, as low speed stability of ALT1 is easily overridden and bank angles would not have triggered the protection before the aeroplane was truly and deeply stalled.

It does not, but the listing at the end of interim 2 shows most of the incidents involved 2 or 3 pitots. If we combine it with A330 FCOM which unambiguously states that high AoA protection is lost if 2 ADR are lost or ADR disagree, we can conclude...

...that there is very good chance that majority (a large one) of incidents involved degrading to the same subset of ALT law AF447 experienced.

If you happen to be referring to other A33o/340 UAS events, then: nope. We don't know that yet. Notion was posted but without quote from reliable source so far.

BEA makes it pretty clear that only 13 of 36 discovered occurrences could be fully analyzed as there were insufficient data on the rest. 9 cases of stall warning and 5 cases of voluntary descent following it were recorded among the 13. Nowhere is mentioned that any crew has disregarded the stall warning or tried to climb when stall warning went off. Except in interim 3. Only one crew.

You are welcome. F-16D is combat capable trainer.

Unlike high-performance, combat single seaters, that require dedicated dual-control version for conversion and weapons training, airliners are required to have fully functional dual sets of controls per certification requirements. They can be used for base and line training without any modification.

Just as the myth about aeroplanes with interconnected yokes (especially those from Seattle) being immune to panic pull was getting seriously damaged, here comes the wink-wink-nudge-nudge that flight controls system of DeHavilland Express is in some, allegedly important, aspect superior to A330's. PPRuNE never ceases to amaze me.

True, just to add that this feature is purely incidental and definitively not by design. A330 was never supposed to get to alpha AF447 achieved.

It is unusual for normal, steady, cruise flight, but is very, very remote from what usually happens in upsets, such as Dynasty 006, Interflug at Moscow Tarom at Paris and there was no classic spin that Birgenair 757 displayed when stalled. 19 degrees of pitch change in 11 seconds is less than 2°/sec average - not very fast in my book. While CM2 actions were distinctively odd, aeroplane's post-stall behaviour would not be intuitive to me at all. I'd expect highly loaded, supercritical, swept wings when pulled really hard to develop asymmetric stall, drop and autorotate. I expected that damage to collected flotsam would turn out to be the final result of very flat spin. That AF447 went down in Cessna 150-like gentle mushing is amazing.

I wonder what conspiracy theorists will make out of it.