AF 447 Thread No. 11
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't answer your question because I don't know. What I do know is that asking for the raw data (which no agency has ever done with a DFDR that records that much information) isn't going to help, because the interpretation of that data is going to be an open goal for accusations of bias from both sides' legal representation, and the scope for misinterpretation of that data is going to be huge.
It smacks to me of playing to the gallery, with the intent of insinuating the notion that the report is incomplete and motives suspicious among those who haven't followed things closely up until now.
What makes little sense to me about this push is that the report as it stands states that while the aircraft was mishandled by the crew, this can be attributed -at least in part - to insufficient training on the part of the airline. The airline seemingly did not disseminate Airbus's UAS bulletins effectively, nor did it follow up on whether the message was received by its crews - it also elected to spread the maintenance schedule where the pitot tubes were to be replaced over time. Airbus allowed that, and the report highlights aspects of the aircraft's design which could be considered unhelpful in a situation of this nature.
Now I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that these aspects of the report give grounds for the families to pursue legal damages and recompense against Air France, Airbus and the authorities already - so why would they need more than that?
It smacks to me of playing to the gallery, with the intent of insinuating the notion that the report is incomplete and motives suspicious among those who haven't followed things closely up until now.
What makes little sense to me about this push is that the report as it stands states that while the aircraft was mishandled by the crew, this can be attributed -at least in part - to insufficient training on the part of the airline. The airline seemingly did not disseminate Airbus's UAS bulletins effectively, nor did it follow up on whether the message was received by its crews - it also elected to spread the maintenance schedule where the pitot tubes were to be replaced over time. Airbus allowed that, and the report highlights aspects of the aircraft's design which could be considered unhelpful in a situation of this nature.
Now I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that these aspects of the report give grounds for the families to pursue legal damages and recompense against Air France, Airbus and the authorities already - so why would they need more than that?
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 4th Jul 2013 at 20:26.
..the future, which will undoubtedly see unmanned airliners giving us better reliability and cheaper flights.
Passengers wanting increasingly unrealistically cheap flights is one cause of the lowering of pilot standards and training, which is arguably one cause of this crash.
Flying in a plane is often cheaper than the equivalent train journey. How can that be economically possible? Think about it for one second. Think about where savings need to be made to make flying a jetliner, operating in three dimensions cheaper than a train, operating in one dimension???
(Before the trolls get out of their pits - I do realise that no trains go from South America to Europe !)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying in a plane is often cheaper than the equivalent train journey. How can that be economically possible?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I do know is that asking for the raw data (which no agency has ever done with a DFDR that records that much information)
When they want .. they can
Last edited by jcjeant; 5th Jul 2013 at 00:31.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jcj:
I said "with that amount of information". That FDR stored nothing like the amount of data that the DFDR on AF447 did.
As I said, the report as it stands questions the standards of Air France, Airbus and the regulator - isn't that enough for the families and their legal representatives to make a case?
I said "with that amount of information". That FDR stored nothing like the amount of data that the DFDR on AF447 did.
As I said, the report as it stands questions the standards of Air France, Airbus and the regulator - isn't that enough for the families and their legal representatives to make a case?
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 5th Jul 2013 at 00:39.
Moderator
Thread Starter
Just having a new procedure in the books does not mean that the pilots know (and understand!) it.
General comment, ie not directed at this mishap specifically.
For us to accept such a statement is to accept that the standard of professionalism amongst working pilots has plummeted to an utterly abysmal level.
A bog standard pilot would be expected to know his relevant Type books. If there exists confusion, that would be referred to the operator's specialists and, if necessary to get some action, the relevant pilot union or regulatory agency. Sometimes one has to stand up and be counted, especially in respect of aircraft commanders.
Then again, the environment may have changed since I was in the sharp end ..
General comment, ie not directed at this mishap specifically.
For us to accept such a statement is to accept that the standard of professionalism amongst working pilots has plummeted to an utterly abysmal level.
A bog standard pilot would be expected to know his relevant Type books. If there exists confusion, that would be referred to the operator's specialists and, if necessary to get some action, the relevant pilot union or regulatory agency. Sometimes one has to stand up and be counted, especially in respect of aircraft commanders.
Then again, the environment may have changed since I was in the sharp end ..
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't answer your question because I don't know. What I do know is that asking for the raw data (which no agency has ever done with a DFDR that records that much information) isn't going to help, because the interpretation of that data is going to be an open goal for accusations of bias from both sides' legal representation, and the scope for misinterpretation of that data is going to be huge.
Now I'm no legal expert, but it seems to me that these aspects of the report give grounds for the families to pursue legal damages and recompense against Air France, Airbus and the authorities already - so why would they need more than that?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That FDR stored nothing like the amount of data that the DFDR on AF447 did.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't be afraid of amount of data .. they are still enough paper and ink on
earth to print it .....
earth to print it .....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France - mostly
Age: 84
Posts: 1,682
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A33Zab,
Good point. Just to add - from Interim Report #2, para. 1.11:
Good point. Just to add - from Interim Report #2, para. 1.11:
This Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR) has a recording capacity of at least twenty-five hours. The decoding document, supplied with this airplane, has around 1,300 parameters.
Just having a new procedure in the books does not mean that the pilots know (and understand!) it.
Then again, the environment may have changed since I was in the sharp end ..
Last edited by Uplinker; 5th Jul 2013 at 09:09.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Did that particular crew went through UAS procedure training?
The BEA report covered that in depth
The BEA report covered that in depth
2008-2009 instruction season E33 simulator training. “IAS douteuse” exercise
Note: The A320 type rating programme at Air France in 2004 did not include a “vol avec IAS douteuse” exercise.
General note: The additional A330 and A340 type ratings deal only with the differences in relation to the type ratings already issued on other types (A320, A330, and A340).
Note: The A320 type rating programme at Air France in 2004 did not include a “vol avec IAS douteuse” exercise.
General note: The additional A330 and A340 type ratings deal only with the differences in relation to the type ratings already issued on other types (A320, A330, and A340).
The scenario selected for the simulator exercise required the crew to perform the component items of the emergency manoeuvre in a context in which the aircraft remained in normal law and no alarm was triggered.
Based on the information provided by the operator, the pilots of F-GZCP performed this training session on the following dates:
Captain: A330 training on 12 March 2008;
Copilot in left seat: A330 training on 6 December 2008;
Copilot in right seat: A330 training on 2 February 2009.
Based on the information provided by the operator, the pilots of F-GZCP performed this training session on the following dates:
Captain: A330 training on 12 March 2008;
Copilot in left seat: A330 training on 6 December 2008;
Copilot in right seat: A330 training on 2 February 2009.
And all 3 did train UAS procedure once in normal law and at low altitude only?
Could have all been worded a little clearer...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's in the report *is* the real story. Unless you know different - please enlighten us with what you think happened. Seriously - you've believed in non-existent conspiracies on the part of the French establishment to protect Airbus for so long that you've lost the plot when it comes to separating reality from fantasy.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by A33Zab
And we need a monks lifetime to decode the 300+ mandatory parameters into a readable format for the ones who cannot read the - RAW - 12 bit Harvard BiPhase Code.
Flight data visualization & animation software: CEFA FAS
Originally Posted by HN39
This Solid State Flight Data Recorder (SSFDR) has a recording capacity of at least twenty-five hours. The decoding document, supplied with this airplane, has around 1,300 parameters.
Originally Posted by dozy
What's in the report *is* the real story. Unless you know different - please enlighten us with what you think happened. Seriously - you've believed in non-existent conspiracies on the part of the French establishment to protect Airbus for so long that you've lost the plot when it comes to separating reality from fantasy.
You dozy consider other manufacturers have protected their product but never on earth Airbus would do so.
What is so special about Airbus ?
In which fantasy do YOU live in ?
Last edited by CONF iture; 5th Jul 2013 at 13:12.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full story is in Full data - Why you guys are afraid to see those full data produced to ALL concerned parties is a mystery ... ?
You dozy consider other manufacturers have protected their product but never on earth Airbus would do so.
In any matter, with the A330 there's nothing to protect - it's already a success.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 5th Jul 2013 at 13:34.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In any matter, with the A330 there's nothing to protect - it's already a success
That's the goal of all manufacturers .. even toys manufacturers !
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@jcj:
That's just it - there's no way to reverse that success at this point. According to Wikipedia they've built 984 of the things, with an order backlog of a further 262. It's a proven and reliable platform, and with the design revisions that came out of this accident investigation it'll be even safer.
By the time those 262 airframes are delivered into service, it's likely that Airbus will begin to wind the programme down in favour of the A350 (about which they've made a big deal regarding a more hands-on control philosophy).
While I remain convinced that the controversy regarding the A320 in the late '80s was at the very least more scuttlebutt than fact, the idea that Airbus might try to protect their investment - being unproven technology (on the line) - at least seemed plausible in a logical sense. Nowadays, with the technology proven, the FBW types having recouped their R&D costs several times over and with Airbus being one of the two largest players in the civil airliner market, the idea makes no sense whatsoever.
That's just it - there's no way to reverse that success at this point. According to Wikipedia they've built 984 of the things, with an order backlog of a further 262. It's a proven and reliable platform, and with the design revisions that came out of this accident investigation it'll be even safer.
By the time those 262 airframes are delivered into service, it's likely that Airbus will begin to wind the programme down in favour of the A350 (about which they've made a big deal regarding a more hands-on control philosophy).
While I remain convinced that the controversy regarding the A320 in the late '80s was at the very least more scuttlebutt than fact, the idea that Airbus might try to protect their investment - being unproven technology (on the line) - at least seemed plausible in a logical sense. Nowadays, with the technology proven, the FBW types having recouped their R&D costs several times over and with Airbus being one of the two largest players in the civil airliner market, the idea makes no sense whatsoever.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full data
Would there be some proprietary reason for hiding raw data. This might prevent competitors reverse engineering systems?
Personally i can't think of what harm sharing the raw data would cause.
Hearing the full CVR from beginning not just 20mins or whatever would help in understanding the tone and context of the flight deck e.g. briefings, interaction, relationship. Presumably BEA has heard and judged it to not be relevant.
No one can be sure what all of the instruments show and which item is being pointed at by crew. Therefore the report suggests video equipment recording.
Improvement needed in all areas: pilot skill, regulator, training, airline, manufacturer, CRM, culture. The system failed tragically that night.
Still no clear answer to basic faults why PF pull up repeatedly and why PM sees this and repeatedly requests fix but does not aggressively assert control. Very sad and frustrating incident.
Personally i can't think of what harm sharing the raw data would cause.
Hearing the full CVR from beginning not just 20mins or whatever would help in understanding the tone and context of the flight deck e.g. briefings, interaction, relationship. Presumably BEA has heard and judged it to not be relevant.
No one can be sure what all of the instruments show and which item is being pointed at by crew. Therefore the report suggests video equipment recording.
Improvement needed in all areas: pilot skill, regulator, training, airline, manufacturer, CRM, culture. The system failed tragically that night.
Still no clear answer to basic faults why PF pull up repeatedly and why PM sees this and repeatedly requests fix but does not aggressively assert control. Very sad and frustrating incident.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - the DFDR is simply recording parameters and cannot reveal anything of that nature. In any case nothing's being "hidden" - it's just that publishing/handling the sheer amount of data is impractical.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
THREAD FRAYING.
There's so much on this accident on the forum, apologies for asking what may have been explained already.
1) Have the FTLs under which the crew were working been eliminated as a possible contributary cause of this HF accident? Were they really well rested etc before reporting for duty?
2) Dozy mentions the dissemination of info to crews or its possible failure. After a quarter of a century in airline flying, I've watched with alarm the onset of totally electronic means of promulgating knowledge to our profession.
There was nothing to beat actually having to insert a page in a manual for drawing ones attention to the latest hot news/SOP/Safety Warning. Now I fear the really important stuff is getting lost in the maelstrom of bumph which regularly hits the screen, so much of it because ANYONE with connection to Flight Ops can push out chaff at the touch of a button.
In the days when it had to be composed, proof-read and sent to the printing company FOR A COST, it seems there was less trash to wade through than in our supposedly paperless environment.
Answers on a postcard please.......................................?
1) Have the FTLs under which the crew were working been eliminated as a possible contributary cause of this HF accident? Were they really well rested etc before reporting for duty?
2) Dozy mentions the dissemination of info to crews or its possible failure. After a quarter of a century in airline flying, I've watched with alarm the onset of totally electronic means of promulgating knowledge to our profession.
There was nothing to beat actually having to insert a page in a manual for drawing ones attention to the latest hot news/SOP/Safety Warning. Now I fear the really important stuff is getting lost in the maelstrom of bumph which regularly hits the screen, so much of it because ANYONE with connection to Flight Ops can push out chaff at the touch of a button.
In the days when it had to be composed, proof-read and sent to the printing company FOR A COST, it seems there was less trash to wade through than in our supposedly paperless environment.
Answers on a postcard please.......................................?