AF 447 Thread No. 11
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Owain:
vilas is correct.
The documents entitled Modification Operational Impacts (MOI) are provided for information only.
MOIs are issued to inform operators, particularly operators'
flight operations and training departments, about the impact the referenced modification and/or Service Bulletin (SB) has on the operation of the aircraft as described in the flight operations documents mentioned in the MOI.
The MOIs particularly describe the impact a modification or a SB has on the FCOM.
Unless specifically listed in the MOI, other flight operations manuals may be affected without indication in the MOI.
MOIs provide a generic and non-customized technical description of the modification/SB, and briefly describe the associated operational impact.
Operators can use MOIs as support material to decide whether to apply the SBs to their fleet.
Operators can also use the MOIs as advance operational information in anticipation of an SB retrofit.
In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews.
MOIs are issued to inform operators, particularly operators'
flight operations and training departments, about the impact the referenced modification and/or Service Bulletin (SB) has on the operation of the aircraft as described in the flight operations documents mentioned in the MOI.
The MOIs particularly describe the impact a modification or a SB has on the FCOM.
Unless specifically listed in the MOI, other flight operations manuals may be affected without indication in the MOI.
MOIs provide a generic and non-customized technical description of the modification/SB, and briefly describe the associated operational impact.
Operators can use MOIs as support material to decide whether to apply the SBs to their fleet.
Operators can also use the MOIs as advance operational information in anticipation of an SB retrofit.
In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@A33Zab
Thank you A33Zab, that is very helpful and new to me.
Presumably, since the MOI is advanced operational information there will be an official accompanying SB and an FCOM change if and when the modification is fitted? Does anyone know of such a change so we can study it in more detail?
MOIs provide a generic and non-customized technical description of the modification/SB, and briefly describe the associated operational impact.
Operators can use MOIs as support material to decide whether to apply the SBs to their fleet.
Operators can also use the MOIs as advance operational information in anticipation of an SB retrofit.
In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews.
Operators can use MOIs as support material to decide whether to apply the SBs to their fleet.
Operators can also use the MOIs as advance operational information in anticipation of an SB retrofit.
In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews.
Presumably, since the MOI is advanced operational information there will be an official accompanying SB and an FCOM change if and when the modification is fitted? Does anyone know of such a change so we can study it in more detail?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Village Vanguard
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you A33Zab. Finally we have something to chew on!
As O.G. has respectfully asked vilas, is there a source? To me, this reads like an individual Operator's term and not something from Airbus.
A key statement is, "In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews."
I'd flown Airbus from 1992 on, for fifteen years and had never heard of the term. I know of ATB's, (Aircraft Technical Bulletins), SB's, (Service Bulletins), OEB's (Operational Engineering Bulletins, which are issued for immediate action due safety relevance), and those more closely associated with the regulator such as SAFO's, (FAA), AD's, (regulator/manufacturer) and so on. Encountered here and then not defined for others, the term "MOI" remained a mystery.
By the description, I understand that an "MOI" is for flight crew information only and as such is advisory, where (as described) a non-technical description of the more formal SB may be desired for quick distribution. Of course, it is understandable that each carrier may have its own informal distribution network where terms may differ between Operators where they are not part of the continuing airworthiness process.
As such, I doubt if an MOI would be proprietary in the same way an Operator's AOM may be so it would be of interest to have at least a hint of what the actual document stated.
As O.G. has respectfully asked vilas, is there a source? To me, this reads like an individual Operator's term and not something from Airbus.
A key statement is, "In all cases, the MOIs are to be used for information only, and the contractual flight operations manuals remain the support documentation of reference for flight crews."
I'd flown Airbus from 1992 on, for fifteen years and had never heard of the term. I know of ATB's, (Aircraft Technical Bulletins), SB's, (Service Bulletins), OEB's (Operational Engineering Bulletins, which are issued for immediate action due safety relevance), and those more closely associated with the regulator such as SAFO's, (FAA), AD's, (regulator/manufacturer) and so on. Encountered here and then not defined for others, the term "MOI" remained a mystery.
By the description, I understand that an "MOI" is for flight crew information only and as such is advisory, where (as described) a non-technical description of the more formal SB may be desired for quick distribution. Of course, it is understandable that each carrier may have its own informal distribution network where terms may differ between Operators where they are not part of the continuing airworthiness process.
As such, I doubt if an MOI would be proprietary in the same way an Operator's AOM may be so it would be of interest to have at least a hint of what the actual document stated.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: The Village Vanguard
Age: 76
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you vilas, much appreciated! As you see, I haven't run across the term in all my Airbus travels. There will be many Airbus terms published/not published by individual operators which do not have continuing airworthiness import but are for aircrew information. This one, I had not ever seen in our own operation. That resolved, is it possible to reproduce, as much as may be possible/desireable, some of the "MOI"?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: NNW of Antipodes
Age: 81
Posts: 1,330
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You said the chicken died a horrible death!
"That is correct, Sir!"
Then please describe the injuries inflicted.
"It's all in the MOI, Sir"
Who's death? The chicken or -
"That is correct, Sir!"
Then please describe the injuries inflicted.
"It's all in the MOI, Sir"
Who's death? The chicken or -
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Winnerhofer you surmised that “Bonin was napping when the A/P cut-off and in the ensuing alarms, panicked and accidentally used the S/S to pull himself out of his reclined position.
This caused the violent NU.”
This is not consistent with Bonin’s first stick actions, discussed at length on previous threads. IIRC, first he countered uncommanded roll by vigorous side movements and accompanying (I believe unintended) minor pitch variations in both directions but on average slightly nose up (the famous “stirring mayonnaise”).
Only after getting the roll under control did he initiate major nose-up movements, and even then not entirely consistently.
It has been done to death before.
This caused the violent NU.”
This is not consistent with Bonin’s first stick actions, discussed at length on previous threads. IIRC, first he countered uncommanded roll by vigorous side movements and accompanying (I believe unintended) minor pitch variations in both directions but on average slightly nose up (the famous “stirring mayonnaise”).
Only after getting the roll under control did he initiate major nose-up movements, and even then not entirely consistently.
It has been done to death before.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dozy
the only person claiming that the (permanent) disconnect didn't happen is one Christian Roger - SNPL member, card carrying member of the "cover-up" conspiracist crew, and member of Asseline's legal team.
It would appear that CONF iture is quoting assertions from this man's report as though they are fact.
It would appear that CONF iture is quoting assertions from this man's report as though they are fact.
Move swiftly out at your own pace ...
Originally Posted by OG
Following on from that, would these steps have been known to the pilot? If they were then why did he not apply them if his intent was to make the demonstration with Alpha -Floor inhibited? If he was unaware that he should take these extra measures then he made the flight believing that he had inhibited it.
Too fast he was.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: West of Offa's dyke
Age: 88
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Confiture
OK, so in your view he intended to cancel any thrust increase from Alpha-Floor if it triggered but this intention was overtaken by events when he applied TOGA thrust too early (for Alpha-Floor to trigger that is).
This would seem to make any consideration of the part that Alpha-Floor might play in this affair totally irrelevant.
That take us back to the conclusion that he intended to make this demonstration in manual flight, taking on his own shoulders the responsibility for energy management and relying entirely on his own experience, skill and judgement.
Those are not extra measures, they're only different. As per CVR the pilot did not elect to permanently inhibit Alpha-Floor, but only temporarily by inhibition upon activation. Doing so is only possible if AoA has already reached 15 degrees, but at the time TOGA was manually applied by the pilot, the AoA had not yet reached such angle.
Too fast he was.
Too fast he was.
This would seem to make any consideration of the part that Alpha-Floor might play in this affair totally irrelevant.
That take us back to the conclusion that he intended to make this demonstration in manual flight, taking on his own shoulders the responsibility for energy management and relying entirely on his own experience, skill and judgement.
Since there's nothing new to tell about AF447...
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
@Chris - I think we do know that Alpha Floor was not a consideration for the pilot of AF296, as he *disabled* A/THR (and thus A. Floor) by holding down the disconnect switches to perform the flypast.
Originally Posted by Winnerhofer
On the RH-seat, there were no seatbelts fastened whatsover.
Originally Posted by DonH
By the description, I understand that an "MOI" is for flight crew information only and as such is advisory
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OG
This would seem to make any consideration of the part that Alpha-Floor might play in this affair totally irrelevant.
I was simply pointing out the misinformed comment made by Dozy, which shows how Habsheim, the Report, or the airplane, are still nebulous.
Any Airbus incident accident report contributes (or not ...) to develop the knowledge on that machine. Habsheim is no exception.
MOI - Modification Operational Impact
ventus 45,
Thanks for that.
Judging from the example in the link you provided, an MOI is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from an OEB (Operational Engineering Bulletin), in that it seems to be a broad-brush, glossy document prepared weeks or months in advance to hand out at a flight-ops symposium (in this case by a senior AI pilot to CAAC flight ops people at a "workshop" [sic!] in Beijing).
Also, the document is nowhere appended with the MOI term, merely with "...confidential and proprietary document". Can you explain the basis on which you selected it as an example?
Thanks for that.
Judging from the example in the link you provided, an MOI is pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum from an OEB (Operational Engineering Bulletin), in that it seems to be a broad-brush, glossy document prepared weeks or months in advance to hand out at a flight-ops symposium (in this case by a senior AI pilot to CAAC flight ops people at a "workshop" [sic!] in Beijing).
Also, the document is nowhere appended with the MOI term, merely with "...confidential and proprietary document". Can you explain the basis on which you selected it as an example?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: somewhere
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@OW
A340 (MOI dated 04 AUG 2005 FCOM rev. 20) and A330 (MOI dated 18 NOV 2004 FCOM rev. 16) makes reference to the AP disconnect.
A330 (MOI dated 01 FEB 2006 FCOM rev. 19) makes reference to the "sidestick neutral or forward for 0.5s while AoA<AoAprot"
an identical MOI for A340 is not listed.
Several SBs are involved since subtypes have their own SB number.
For A340-2/3xx SB 27-4131 may be involved since this SB mentions "an improvement in AoA phase out logic" without specifying the improvement in detail.
A330 (MOI dated 01 FEB 2006 FCOM rev. 19) makes reference to the "sidestick neutral or forward for 0.5s while AoA<AoAprot"
an identical MOI for A340 is not listed.
Several SBs are involved since subtypes have their own SB number.
For A340-2/3xx SB 27-4131 may be involved since this SB mentions "an improvement in AoA phase out logic" without specifying the improvement in detail.
ventus 45,
Thanks again - I simply hadn't got to Page 22. Still wondering if that glossy document is itself an MOI, or repeating information previously promulgated in a specific document called MOI.
A33Zab,
Seems the plot is still thickening on these matters...
Quote from Clandestino:
"Now if anyone thinks exact mechanism of disabling alpha floor is of concern in the accident where narrowbody full of passengers was deliberately flown below 100ft at 120 kt and idle thrust - feel free to entertain me further."
Very much associate myself with that sentiment, My base training at Blagnac with AI in March 1988 - around the same time as the Habsheim crew - naturally included that part of the flight envelope. The differences from Habsheim included: safe altitude, no rushed manoeuvering and energy disposal to botch, and NO PASSENGERS. Seeing the Habsheim video a few months later suspended belief, but suggested the protections had worked well.
It is human nature, however, to want to understand the detail of the main factors in any departure.
Thanks again - I simply hadn't got to Page 22. Still wondering if that glossy document is itself an MOI, or repeating information previously promulgated in a specific document called MOI.
A33Zab,
Seems the plot is still thickening on these matters...
Quote from Clandestino:
"Now if anyone thinks exact mechanism of disabling alpha floor is of concern in the accident where narrowbody full of passengers was deliberately flown below 100ft at 120 kt and idle thrust - feel free to entertain me further."
Very much associate myself with that sentiment, My base training at Blagnac with AI in March 1988 - around the same time as the Habsheim crew - naturally included that part of the flight envelope. The differences from Habsheim included: safe altitude, no rushed manoeuvering and energy disposal to botch, and NO PASSENGERS. Seeing the Habsheim video a few months later suspended belief, but suggested the protections had worked well.
It is human nature, however, to want to understand the detail of the main factors in any departure.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: In one of the two main circles
Age: 65
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris,
The document is a presentation made to CAAC, illustrated with an image taken out of a MOI.
MOIs respect the general "look and feel" of Airbus' Flight Ops documents.
The document is a presentation made to CAAC, illustrated with an image taken out of a MOI.
MOIs respect the general "look and feel" of Airbus' Flight Ops documents.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Seeing the Habsheim video a few months later suspended belief, but suggested the protections had worked well.