AF 447 Thread No. 10
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether or not the a/c was reporting it, we are only sure of the crew's cognizance at 2:10:16. That is eleven seconds to be in the dark as to what is wrong.
Loss of Autopilot does NOT mean fly "PITCH AND POWER". It means fly...
You continue to studiedly ignore what RR and myself, among others, have pointed out, that the a/c was not clearly indicating that UAS was the problem, and that the computers did not necessarily include the crew from the outset of suspected duff speeds.
The reference is to what the a/c displayed, RESULTS of bad data.
Question. If the a/c had ceased displaying IAS from the outset of suspected bad speeds, would not the pilots have had obvious cue of loss of Airspeed (literally)
Displaying any cue that is known to be false is counter to good design, if said cue can be left out.with impunity.
Why waste precious time in a situation that is easily remedied with Pitch and Power?
The fact that pilot started handling the a/c demonstrates his belief it needed handling, period, speeds or not.
Loss of Autopilot does NOT mean fly "PITCH AND POWER". It means fly...
You continue to studiedly ignore what RR and myself, among others, have pointed out, that the a/c was not clearly indicating that UAS was the problem, and that the computers did not necessarily include the crew from the outset of suspected duff speeds.
The reference is to what the a/c displayed, RESULTS of bad data.
Question. If the a/c had ceased displaying IAS from the outset of suspected bad speeds, would not the pilots have had obvious cue of loss of Airspeed (literally)
Displaying any cue that is known to be false is counter to good design, if said cue can be left out.with impunity.
Why waste precious time in a situation that is easily remedied with Pitch and Power?
The fact that pilot started handling the a/c demonstrates his belief it needed handling, period, speeds or not.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONFiture, i lived in that particular country for five and a half years, and I am more than happy for every day I left it. However, that will not blend over the fact that once the HALs decide they have insufficient info he shows you what he does not understand anymore.
OTOH, Air France by now managed to be the first to wreck any Airbus since the A320, typically by not following procedures. You seem to be French, you should not be suprisd by such culture...
Oh, any anyone who believes Airbus is French has not lived there.
OTOH, Air France by now managed to be the first to wreck any Airbus since the A320, typically by not following procedures. You seem to be French, you should not be suprisd by such culture...
Oh, any anyone who believes Airbus is French has not lived there.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You continue to studiedly ignore what RR and myself, among others, have pointed out, that the a/c was not clearly indicating that UAS was the problem, and that the computers did not necessarily include the crew from the outset of suspected duff speeds.
The reference is to what the a/c displayed, RESULTS of bad data.
Question. If the a/c had ceased displaying IAS from the outset of suspected bad speeds, would not the pilots have had obvious cue of loss of Airspeed (literally)
Displaying any cue that is known to be false is counter to good design, if said cue can be left out.with impunity.
Why waste precious time in a situation that is easily remedied with Pitch and Power?
The fact that pilot started handling the a/c demonstrates his belief it needed handling, period, speeds or not.
The ECAM and ACARS sequencing will both vary accordingly, and in the case of ACARS the shuffling shows up when a lot is going on.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
he did it because he freaked out under pressure
In this case, it looks like the startle effect took precedence
Panic because the autopilot disengages at cruising altitude?
If this is the case .. it says a lot about the criteria for selection of pilots and particularly on the selection made by AF
BTW it's not only on Air France !
Last edited by jcjeant; 19th Sep 2012 at 23:39.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If we assume that incompetence (never trained how to fly the plane) and negligence (knew now to but failed to) are out, then something caused PF to seek 10-15 degrees pitch up. Your (and RR and others) premise is that lack of precise indication of UAS from the outset is causative, right ?
So... perhaps you could humour this non-pilot and fill in the blanks, because I still don't understand how you get from:
- A/P has gone off, I have control
- Plane needs handling
- Plane hasn't told my WHY A/P dropped out
to...
- I need to pull up 10 degrees in cruise (even though that would normally be a crazy thing to do)
The only thing I can think of is airspeed indicated erroneously high (very high) - but that didn't happen, it went erroneously low.
So, what was it ? What piece of garbage information presented to the crew could have lead to that response ?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
comfort zone
Autopilot is now the comfort zone of pilots ...
infrequentflyer789
If we assume that incompetence (never trained how to fly the plane) and negligence (knew now to but failed to) are out
Remember ... Bonin ask (or dunno) what is St Elmo fire ...
Even a uneducated poor fisherman know what is St Elmo fire .....
Last edited by jcjeant; 20th Sep 2012 at 00:39.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
infrequentflyer789
Hello. "And fly is what they did not do..."
The autopilot was actively maneuvering until it quit, at handoff the a/c was rolling 4 degrees per second to the right, the nose was low, and they had exited moderate turbulence in conditions that I submit were more of a challenge than they were acknowledging, at least to each other, if not to themselves. If Bonin had not arrested roll, they would have been banked fourty five degrees when Robert said "So, we've lost the speeds..." eleven seconds later. In the eleven seconds I submit Bonin was unaware of UAS, his Pitch was not "full back" in fact it included several ND excursions.
Much has been made of "Do nothing". Not possible, given the conditions. Once Bonin got responses in Pitch (Was it sluggish? "Beware unusual control responses") he could easily have lost his sense of attitude. He was always the one flying, and his Panel was not recorded. What did he see and what was he using for references for his inputs? I don't know. At one point, PNF "Put him in ATT/HDG."?
Had he been using IAS? For the longest time I have defended this pilot, and I will not stop, though I do have to admit some strange examples of "pilotage" have shown up in other accidents (Colgan) (Schiphol) (Caraibes) and incidents.
Without a complete disclosure of the CVR it is impossible to know exactly what happened in the initial 20 seconds, the phase when the die was cast. I think that is deplorable...
My recent post addressed the fact that erroneous Airspeed was displayed. I consider that unfortunate, yet Dozy says it is unavoidable.
If IAS can be lost temporarily without risk, dump it until it can be verified. Given the state of the industry and the apparent lack of readiness to fly manual at altitude, nothing should be left to chance.
Hello. "And fly is what they did not do..."
The autopilot was actively maneuvering until it quit, at handoff the a/c was rolling 4 degrees per second to the right, the nose was low, and they had exited moderate turbulence in conditions that I submit were more of a challenge than they were acknowledging, at least to each other, if not to themselves. If Bonin had not arrested roll, they would have been banked fourty five degrees when Robert said "So, we've lost the speeds..." eleven seconds later. In the eleven seconds I submit Bonin was unaware of UAS, his Pitch was not "full back" in fact it included several ND excursions.
Much has been made of "Do nothing". Not possible, given the conditions. Once Bonin got responses in Pitch (Was it sluggish? "Beware unusual control responses") he could easily have lost his sense of attitude. He was always the one flying, and his Panel was not recorded. What did he see and what was he using for references for his inputs? I don't know. At one point, PNF "Put him in ATT/HDG."?
Had he been using IAS? For the longest time I have defended this pilot, and I will not stop, though I do have to admit some strange examples of "pilotage" have shown up in other accidents (Colgan) (Schiphol) (Caraibes) and incidents.
Without a complete disclosure of the CVR it is impossible to know exactly what happened in the initial 20 seconds, the phase when the die was cast. I think that is deplorable...
My recent post addressed the fact that erroneous Airspeed was displayed. I consider that unfortunate, yet Dozy says it is unavoidable.
If IAS can be lost temporarily without risk, dump it until it can be verified. Given the state of the industry and the apparent lack of readiness to fly manual at altitude, nothing should be left to chance.
Last edited by Lyman; 20th Sep 2012 at 01:14.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and is that 2:12:44 time for ADR DISAGREE an ACARS downlink time, or an ECAM appearance time?
Dozy, talkin out your backside again, are ye?
You make an overly broad assertion, which is far more accurately stated as:
Some high performing pilots (call them set A) make errors when taken out of their comfort zone.
Others don't. Why? They adapt to unexpected changes in their environment better than the set A pilots do. Why? No short answer. If you could bottle it, you'd make your fortune many times over.
Have seen this through personal observation over and over again.
Disagree - even top-drawer pilots mess up when taken out of their comfort zone.
Some high performing pilots (call them set A) make errors when taken out of their comfort zone.
Others don't. Why? They adapt to unexpected changes in their environment better than the set A pilots do. Why? No short answer. If you could bottle it, you'd make your fortune many times over.
Have seen this through personal observation over and over again.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
@CONF - coming from someone who's still convinced that Asseline's stuff-up was the fault of the aircraft I wouldn't be throwing stones. Hunter states something that contradicts your hypothesis, so you automatically assume he must be part of the conspiracy.
Educate yourself on my view once for all - It's here.
Hunter58, as the instigator of the Big red X over the speed scale early in the sequence at AP disconnect, here and here, would you give a hand to Dozy who put his trust in you to locate such reference in the BEA reports ?
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Devonshire
Age: 96
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Startled ?
I cannot know whether this was the case :
IF PF had seldom ( if ever) manually flown an A330 - except premeditatedly for a very few minutes after T/O and again, just prior to Landing, both of these at low level, it would be natural for him to be startled.
The Drill for UAS (then) empathised Terrain clearance.
On earlier, less sophisticated aircraft, I soon learned to hand fly through Cbs, IFR and at night, before radar was available. St. Elmo's Fire and lightening strikes occurred. And my knees got wet because the windscreen leaked until a blanket was made available ! I logged my first 250 hours of hand flying, sometimes doing a couple of 3 hours sessions in a day, alternating with the Captain. ( My quality did deteriorate - but there were no flight time limitations, then.)
IF PF had seldom ( if ever) manually flown an A330 - except premeditatedly for a very few minutes after T/O and again, just prior to Landing, both of these at low level, it would be natural for him to be startled.
The Drill for UAS (then) empathised Terrain clearance.
On earlier, less sophisticated aircraft, I soon learned to hand fly through Cbs, IFR and at night, before radar was available. St. Elmo's Fire and lightening strikes occurred. And my knees got wet because the windscreen leaked until a blanket was made available ! I logged my first 250 hours of hand flying, sometimes doing a couple of 3 hours sessions in a day, alternating with the Captain. ( My quality did deteriorate - but there were no flight time limitations, then.)
Last edited by Jetdriver; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:50.
Freight God
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: LS-R54A
Posts: 307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CONFiture
The BEA does not loose a single word on the representation of the speed tapes. If mentiones mesured speeds only, and focuses on the representation of the ECAM messages. There is no reference on whether there was a visual clue of the rejection of data via a cross (as it should be in that case) or not (which could be interpreted as erroneous data).
Obviously this factor was not worth a detailed description, which I believe is not a good call as there would be no discussion about it. However, since the speed values seem to have been rejected, this would have triggered the cross.
I am sure you can clarify this to our satisfaction, or would it trouble your picture of the supposedly corruptive power of a certain aircraft manufacturer too much? However, since you seem to at least have been in France once you should remember that such power would be extremely limited as every little local politician with ambitions would try to grab national attention by disclosing whatever information he has available. There are no secrets in 'La Grande Nation', the are simply too may elements ready to disclose them for their own short term publicitary benefit...
The BEA does not loose a single word on the representation of the speed tapes. If mentiones mesured speeds only, and focuses on the representation of the ECAM messages. There is no reference on whether there was a visual clue of the rejection of data via a cross (as it should be in that case) or not (which could be interpreted as erroneous data).
Obviously this factor was not worth a detailed description, which I believe is not a good call as there would be no discussion about it. However, since the speed values seem to have been rejected, this would have triggered the cross.
I am sure you can clarify this to our satisfaction, or would it trouble your picture of the supposedly corruptive power of a certain aircraft manufacturer too much? However, since you seem to at least have been in France once you should remember that such power would be extremely limited as every little local politician with ambitions would try to grab national attention by disclosing whatever information he has available. There are no secrets in 'La Grande Nation', the are simply too may elements ready to disclose them for their own short term publicitary benefit...
Last edited by Hunter58; 20th Sep 2012 at 20:55. Reason: Addition at end
Hunter, I inferred, perhaps incorrectly, that the pilot's remark "we have lost the speeds" was a response to an indication failure of his airspeed indicator, which I presume, also perhaps incorrectly, would be something like an "off flag" or "red X" or other marked change in presentation.
It may have seemed far too obvious a detail for the BEA to dwell on?
If I am off the mark here, please advise.
It may have seemed far too obvious a detail for the BEA to dwell on?
If I am off the mark here, please advise.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hunter58
The BEA does not loose a single word on the representation of the speed tapes.
The SPD flag (There is no such thing as a big red X) which replaces the speed scale, was not displayed before 02:11:40
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: fl
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personnaly I think Dozy is one of the smart guys in this group. I think he believes as I do that it doesn't matter what aircraft you fly, if the IAS goes away just fly attitude and power. That is what the autopilot was doing until it disconnected so why change anything. I don't care if Airbus says go to climb power and 5 degrees up in their situation, they didn't even do that, they pulled up to over 15 degrees for no reason and the PNF let him. Bad. Do we need the old timers to come back and teach them?
300 hr pilots flying on autopilot for a thousand hours are not real pilots. They cause crashes like this because they can not hand fly and trust automation to bail them out. When automation fails they are lost. AF proves it.
300 hr pilots flying on autopilot for a thousand hours are not real pilots. They cause crashes like this because they can not hand fly and trust automation to bail them out. When automation fails they are lost. AF proves it.
Last edited by bubbers44; 21st Sep 2012 at 03:02.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Bubbers44
Personnaly I think Dozy is one of the smart guys in this group. I think he believes as I do that it doesn't matter what aircraft you fly, if the IAS goes away just fly attitude and power. That is what the autopilot was doing until it disconnected so why change anything. I don't care if Airbus says go to climb power and 5 degrees up in their situation, they didn't even do that, they pulled up to over 15 degrees for no reason and the PNF let him. Bad. Do we need the old timers to come back and teach them?
It's easy to second guess from the rocking chair.
I would have second guessed from my MD80, but now I fly an Airbus and there but for the grace of God go I.