AF 447 Thread No. 8
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
The consensus as I understand it was that allowing high-bypass jet engines of any type and on any airliner to spool down at any point of the approach was a big no-no, and pilots of the calibre and experience of those in command on the day should have been well aware of that fact.
All engines operating at the power and/or thrust which are available 8 seconds after initiation of movement of the power and/or thrust controls from the minimum flight idle to the takeoff position
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lyman,
The year was 1988. What you are "seeing" is neither a "stall" or a "surge". It is a result of a throttle burst from minimum idle to max thrust. In those days, when you did that, even on a test stand, you would see unburned fuel vapors out the tailpipe. It had to do with the state of design knowledge in those days regarding the combustor and fuel insertion into the combustor. With today's combustor sophistication and knowledge rarely would you see this.
Anyhow, both engines performed as advertised, with power application being just a little late.
Dozy,
Without getting into a lot of detail, I am sure. It was a warning and reminder of the spool up time required on this engine from minimum flight idle to TOGA thrust, whether it takes place at 50 feet or 250 feet from the ground, much more critical than at or near cruise altitude.
#2, about 200 meters short of the trees, keep looking. And he did not say 'compressor'.
Now I had to go look. It is #1, looks more surgy than stally. sheesh.
Now I had to go look. It is #1, looks more surgy than stally. sheesh.
Anyhow, both engines performed as advertised, with power application being just a little late.
Dozy,
I'm not so sure. The much-referenced delay in spooling up (and the reference to earlier problems in the A320 testing regimen) referred to slow spool up at medium to cruise altitude, and thus a completely different area of the flight envelope compared to the position of the Habsheim jet.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speed and the Paris Air Show.
I believe that we all as pilots knew very well that jet engines took about 8 seconds to spool up. That was the case on the B727 when I flew them back in the 70's. I am quite sure it was a lack of knowledge and experience that caused that accident. The A320 was new and no one quite understood it's idiosyncrasies. When I started my training on the A320, I realized how complicated the technology was and understood then why they lost that first one at the show. Remember too that the A320 of today is very different to the one that crashed. Many mods over the years. I don't fault the pilots. The technology was new, difficult to understand and the training possibly inadequate. It's so easy to point fingers after the fact.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What recommendations ??
First of all that :
(1) Pilots understand and respect high altitude flight into thunderstorms
(2) Radar must be properly setup at Top of Climb.
(3) Pilots understand "supercooled water" and how it behaves.
(4) Respect SOPs and apply them
(5) Better training on high altitude manual handling
(6) More use of GPS info. A separate GPS readout of speed (GS), altitude (true), and track, would have saved the day. I carried a handheld unit and it made me feel sooooo good. It was all I needed to land the thing if all was lost.
It's hard for me to accept the loss of a perfectly good airplane due to all of the above. Hope we all learn from it.
(1) Pilots understand and respect high altitude flight into thunderstorms
(2) Radar must be properly setup at Top of Climb.
(3) Pilots understand "supercooled water" and how it behaves.
(4) Respect SOPs and apply them
(5) Better training on high altitude manual handling
(6) More use of GPS info. A separate GPS readout of speed (GS), altitude (true), and track, would have saved the day. I carried a handheld unit and it made me feel sooooo good. It was all I needed to land the thing if all was lost.
It's hard for me to accept the loss of a perfectly good airplane due to all of the above. Hope we all learn from it.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This statement:
and this one:
are logically incompatible with one another. Either you believe that the BEA are involved in an ongoing effort to shield Airbus from blame by fudging information or you don't. You cannot claim to be agnostic and hold the viewpoint in the first statement.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth - I "buy" nobody's "perfection". I just don't believe the BEA are any less independent than any other international accident investigation body you care to name.
@thermostat and Turbine D:
I'm happy to bow to those more knowledgeable, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the idea that the A320 had any specific "idiosyncrasies" regarding engine spool-up time that the crew would have been unaware of if the guidelines regarding spool-up time were known of in the B727 days.
The captain of AF296 was AF's second most experienced pilot on type - he was well aware that the aircraft would limit alpha-max if there was not sufficient airspeed to initiate a climb. I believe that he simply became so goal-focused on getting to 100ft at the runway threshold, that he didn't factor in the side-effect of expediting his descent (by throttling back to spool-down) to do so. "There but for the grace of God" is one thing, but to blame the aircraft for being inscrutable is a cop-out.
I am agnostic.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth - I "buy" nobody's "perfection". I just don't believe the BEA are any less independent than any other international accident investigation body you care to name.
@thermostat and Turbine D:
I'm happy to bow to those more knowledgeable, but I'm having a hard time reconciling the idea that the A320 had any specific "idiosyncrasies" regarding engine spool-up time that the crew would have been unaware of if the guidelines regarding spool-up time were known of in the B727 days.
The captain of AF296 was AF's second most experienced pilot on type - he was well aware that the aircraft would limit alpha-max if there was not sufficient airspeed to initiate a climb. I believe that he simply became so goal-focused on getting to 100ft at the runway threshold, that he didn't factor in the side-effect of expediting his descent (by throttling back to spool-down) to do so. "There but for the grace of God" is one thing, but to blame the aircraft for being inscrutable is a cop-out.
Originally Posted by CONF iture
The real link between Habsheim and AF447 is that the BEA is investigating an Airbus accident.
Originally Posted by Thermostat
What recommendations ??
According to DFDR readout, no penetration of storm cell occurred. Discussed to death but the notion keeps re-spawning.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Something certain about the crash at Habsheim :
Both flight recorders (CVR and DFDR) disappear the evening of the event, 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.
It is therefore by an illegal act that begins the investigation
I am not surprised, therefore, of the controversy that followed and which is still not closed for some
BTW ... there is good reason for all the publicity that was made during the sealing of the black boxes of AF447 .. it was even filmed and shown to public
Something certain about the crash at Habsheim :
Both flight recorders (CVR and DFDR) disappear the evening of the event, 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.
It is therefore by an illegal act that begins the investigation
I am not surprised, therefore, of the controversy that followed and which is still not closed for some
BTW ... there is good reason for all the publicity that was made during the sealing of the black boxes of AF447 .. it was even filmed and shown to public
Last edited by jcjeant; 23rd Apr 2012 at 23:16.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a mistake.
A lot of that "controversy" was manufactured by a private Swiss investigator who was paid to come to the conclusions he came to.
The BEA were so horrified by the accusations levelled at them that they (and the local gendarmerie) wouldn't touch the recorders from the subsequent Air Inter crash until the NTSB team that they had brought over were able to confirm that no tampering with the CVR and DFDR had occurred. The NTSB team were genuinely worried that the data would be lost due to remaining in the burning wreckage for so long.
I am not surprised, therefore, of the controversy that followed and which is still not closed for some
The BEA were so horrified by the accusations levelled at them that they (and the local gendarmerie) wouldn't touch the recorders from the subsequent Air Inter crash until the NTSB team that they had brought over were able to confirm that no tampering with the CVR and DFDR had occurred. The NTSB team were genuinely worried that the data would be lost due to remaining in the burning wreckage for so long.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe so, but the DGAC is *not* the BEA. What followed was an honest attempt on the BEA's part to prove to the doubters that whatever happened with the boxes from AF296 would not be repeated on their watch. The people who won't let the aftermath of AF296 go conveniently forget about those efforts, and do themselves no favours by doing so, because it doesn't suit their agenda.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it's illegal act
Turn it how you want, it was said. Another oblique swipe at BEA seems to be the favoured direction
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SAFETY FIRST issue 11 Jan 2011 page 8
Under STALL WARNING and STALL
A340-600 " performing a low altitude level flight deceleration at idle until SW is triggered and then push the THR levers to TOGA...
The thrust actually reaches TOGA (20 seconds later), the aircraft stalls ... "
Others may know whether this information is helpful - or relevant.
I had a new Captain nearly do this unintentionally with a very empty Britannia freighter, where the time would have been less but still seemed an age. It was night time... I learned from that example... I didn't copy !
Under STALL WARNING and STALL
A340-600 " performing a low altitude level flight deceleration at idle until SW is triggered and then push the THR levers to TOGA...
The thrust actually reaches TOGA (20 seconds later), the aircraft stalls ... "
Others may know whether this information is helpful - or relevant.
I had a new Captain nearly do this unintentionally with a very empty Britannia freighter, where the time would have been less but still seemed an age. It was night time... I learned from that example... I didn't copy !
Last edited by Jetdriver; 24th Apr 2012 at 01:35.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPBsen
Sorry for return on this subject .. but if this is not revelant to an investigation .. why the boxes must be sealed ?
What is the exact purpose of affixing seals ?
Perhaps it was, but that was completely irrelevant to the investigation
What is the exact purpose of affixing seals ?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jcj : The seal is for the judicial inquiry, not the accident investigation.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mr Optimistic
And where exactly are we going now?
A form of early insurance in case the contents of the final report is not liked, I suppose. Or perhaps just a case of disliking anything French and having a dig any which way.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino. Have you heard the saying "Doctors differ, patients die" ?
I watched an informative video in 4 parts with a pilot. 2 investigators (one English and one American) and an expert in weather matters. They showed a segment on supercooled water and how it reacted when disturbed. This video was extremely well done and all the ppruners should watch it. My experience in aviation spans 32 years, and I do my own thinking thank you. Common sense mixed with experience on different jets allows me to draw my own conclusions.
It's very clear to me (as I have posted many times before) why the accident happened.
I watched an informative video in 4 parts with a pilot. 2 investigators (one English and one American) and an expert in weather matters. They showed a segment on supercooled water and how it reacted when disturbed. This video was extremely well done and all the ppruners should watch it. My experience in aviation spans 32 years, and I do my own thinking thank you. Common sense mixed with experience on different jets allows me to draw my own conclusions.
It's very clear to me (as I have posted many times before) why the accident happened.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Middle America
Age: 84
Posts: 1,167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thermostat,
Do you really think they encountered supercooled water? Wouldn't ice crystals clogging the pitots be a more likely scenario? I think they finally saw what was ahead on the radar (somewhat late) and started to skirt around the worst of the CB. I am of the impression that CBs in the ITCZ are different than those over land in that the updrafts around the edges of the CBs are warmer (ocean warm water effect) and wouldn't produce supercooled water at the altitude they were cruising at. In fact, they couldn't climb because of the warmer temperature. Am I wrong here?
They showed a segment on supercooled water and how it reacted when disturbed.