Natstrackalpha

Yeh, like a great big thunderstorm.

Natstrackalpha

All this habooble about controlling the aircraft - did they not use the FPV?
At least they would have seen their flightpath that way - as sailing downhill with a nose high attitude is an exceptionally bad situation.

This idea of "full back stick produces climb and TOGA and it will not stall" probably enticed the pilot to do just that in a magentarianly childish sort of way . . .? This "belief" has fooled one or two, at the wrong altitude or in the wrong law.

Also, why not use the three gimballed gyro like they did on the Apollo integrating the D.I. with the A.I. Apart from gymbal lock over the poles -there would be a 3D (kind of) indication of ATT then.

roulishollandais

They lost the FPV at 02.12.10 (Capt PFD) and 02.12.16 (FO PFD). ACARS sent messages, but these are WARNING messages who have no issue on ECAM

Interim report (N°,1) Jul 2,2009 (Page 50/128)
1.16.2.4 Analysis of the messages recieved on 1. Jul from 2h10 via SITA's ACARS network
[...]
02.12.10-.WRN/WN0906010211 341200106 FLAG ON CAPT PFD FPV
02.12.16-.WRN/WN0906010211 341200106 FLAG ON FO PFD FPV

DozyWannabe

There is no evidence for this - none whatsoever. Yet this belief seems to have pervaded a certain set of people...

When and where? I've never heard of any incident or accident caused by flight law confusion.

Natstrackalpha

Indeed?

The one at the airshow many years ago - full back stick below 100`
Aircraft landed in the trees.

Natstrackalpha

Thank you Roulis, will review.

HazelNuts39

From the Final Report, page 98 (my bolding):

CONF iture

Except that coincidently some 20 sec earlier the CPT had just said :
"Prend ça"
Probably what I could say after selecting the bird on ...

That's also coincidently the period of time when full back stick was maintained ... at which time the bird would have been firmly at the bottom of the PFD ...

BEA is not telling everything.
Where are ALL the data ?

roulishollandais

@Hazelnuts39
1. In any case the FPV was no more available, due to ADIRU algorithm which is not purely inertial. (not equipping HUD is inertial, as gums confirmed it often).
2.We no more find the whole list of the ACARS in the final report. To find it we have to go to the N°1 BEA interim report (in english only : WHY ?)
3. and we find that strange note :


I understand that OPS didn't "knew" MAINTENANCE ...

That interim report has been written jul 2. 2009, and ACARS were recieved by AIR FRANCE (CDG, were they received by AF RIO too ?) nearly in real time.... a couple of minutes before the crash.

- .1/WRN/WN0906010214 213100206ADVISORY CABIN VERTICAL SPEED

DozyWannabe

That wasn't flight law confusion, that was stuffing up the approach and letting the engines spool down, having previously disabled the safety feature that would prevent them automatically doing so. Because the aircraft in that case was in Normal Law, it never stalled - it simply crashed because the crew put it in an irrecoverable position. Anyway - completely different incident, not really relevant here...

jcjeant

The BEA (and some other) have all data
IMHO to see it will take to wait for the trial as it is a request of some families' lawyers

AlphaZuluRomeo

@ CONF iture:

Hard fact.
(+ BEA admits it can make mistakes... and correct them in due time)

Guess.
(based on a very vague word: "ça"/"that", BTW)

Which one do you believe?

You may repeat it at lenght (which you do, lately), but without adding hard facts and/or logical patterns, I doubt many will change their mind to embrace your view.

Cheers

HazelNuts39

The captain's "Prend ça" is echoed three times by the PNF. The BEA nor the judicial group of experts understand what "ça" refers to. The next item on the CVR record is the PF saying that he has 'no vario' "there". Both the BEA and the judicial experts attribute that to the VSI needle being on the stop, but it has been there (6000 fpm) for some time.

Therefore I think the PF is replying to the captain and the PNF, who have been pointing to the standby instrument, which doesn't indicate V/S.

EDIT:
Why is it a problem for the PF that he doesn't have V/S? I can understand a pilot needs V/S to maintain altitude or a certain value of V/S. Both pilots have expressed more than once that they've lost control, the altimeter is spooling down rapidly, and the PF announces: "Ï have a problem, it's that I don't have vertical speed indication"?

Lonewolf_50

HazelNuts39:
I seem to recall a line of thought that went this way:

that if he was looking at the V/S, and the V/S was "pegged, (at a max value) he may not have recognized how fast he was falling, and then thought his V/S display was wrong.

I may have mis-remembered a number of previous discussions on this, but the guess along that line of thinking is consistent with a general breakdown in instrument scan. His significant change in altitude (an error) when flight condition and route called for straight and level flying, is also a symptom of a breakdown in instrument scan.

gums

I am feeling that some of the dinosaurs here are resisting the concept of an inertially-based flight path symbol, coupled with a HUD are too much to ask. I also iterate some of my beefs and whines rom the last four years. Sorry, but I need to rant.

I try to live the situation of 447 and am deeply saddened. I understand to some of extent the complications of crew resource management and such in a plane with more than one "pilot". I never had that problem or challenge. If I screwed up, it was me. I didn't take 200 PLF's with me.

I understand the mentality of "you can't stall this plane", but I also learned the best I could all the reversion laws and such of the first operational FBW system in the world. After all, you never, not ever, commanded actual control surface position or rates with zero stick/yolk feedback. In our family model we could not see or feel was the nugget in the other seat was attmpting. In an extreme situation, as with sensed AoA above 30 degrees or so, HAL would allow you to use the "manual stick override" feature, and you could actually control horizontal stab like the 'bus "direct mode".

As 'doze pointed out, in the "airshow/demo" accident and with 447, it is possible to fly the jet to a condition that precludes recovery. So I question basic airmanship and knowledge of the plane's capabilities and aero characteristics.

Back to my main whine - why not a flight path vector clearly displayed to show you what the plane is actually doing with zero air data, and a very simple device that resembles what you see looking forward as you fly those last thousand feet before touchdown begin the flare.

I flew with such things from 1971 until 1984. I checked out many commercial reserve and guard pilots. They simply loved the displays and capabilities.

see: HGS-3500 Head-up Guidance System

Maybe I am not informed of what the current commercial jets use for basic attitude reference, or if they have an inertial system for nav and velocity vectors. Seems to me that many vendors have provided these since the 70's, although we military pukes used them from the early 60's.

Sorry for the rant, and I'll watch the reaction.

femanvate

Few crashes have captured our fears and emotions like AF447, literally disappearing over the middle of an ocean. After all the finger pointing and politics, there are still strong arguments attributing the cause to various parties.
1. If you blame the pilots to vindicate Air France, you are correct.
2. If you blame Air France to vindicate Airbus, you are correct.
3. If you blame Airbus to vindicate the pilots, you are correct.
Did we learn enough to anticipate these scenarios happening again? or will the growth of fly-by-wire lead to a new category of "digital crashes™ "

Clandestino

This is Profesional Pilots Rumour Network.

Aerospace professionals do not indulge in assigning blame, so if you are looking for someone who is both blaming something or someone and is also correct, you are at wrong place.

Imagination too, as you only too well prove.

Landflap

"Aerospace professionals do no indulge in assigning blame ".............Good grief, tell us which joyous planet you live on ! My 40 year career and well over 20,000 hrs as a professional pilot have convinced me that the blame culture is rife. Everyone seems to want a scapegoat in order to shift the blame. Sometimes, just to place a situation in a box and close the file. Indeed, I started my career in 1965 laughing at the phrase "Not me Guv, I'm electrics !" ! The AF prang is not classroom holes in cheese lining up. It is inadequate pilot training, inadequate airmanship & the armchair computerised technology favoured by modern aircraft designers. Damn, just argued myselef into lining up holes ! Look, get back to proper, selected, pilot training & teach the guys & gals at the sharp end to FLY out of problems. Avoid thinking inside the box. It will kill you.

Centaurus

And that's the rub.. Simulators are just the vehicle to learn how to FLY out of problems. But when the majority of check pilot/simulator instructors have no idea how to first demonstrate rather than simply criticise from the jump seat, then it is easier for them to talk the pilot under training through button pressing rather than actually placing hands on the flight controls and throttles and fixing the problem quickly.

roulishollandais

After more than 40 years so positive experience in Military planes , it is time to teach HUD flying in civilian airline world.

To get it :

1. We have to add it to ICAO Instrument Rating mandatory items to know to get instrument rating qualification.

2. Gyrolasers have proved their liability in Space navigation too... It is great time to fly with inertial informations as basic information and PFD as spare, and

3. Using head-up displays .

With A320 we discovered with surprise that very strange - non-pilot -position neck bolded on computers during ... minutes!! PM and sometimes PF have in supposed to be "modern" FBW planes.

Civilian pilots are still using the very old concepts to fly without visibility or transitioning instrument/visual leading to crashes by bad piloting AND management.

Aerobatics is still to learn to understand mechanik of flight and forget the wrong Airbus ad. phantasm anything flying would never stall..

Pilots have to get pilots again. Head up with good informations in the brain and in the eyes

(skydiving taught me "Body goes where eyes are going)