Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Tech Log
Reload this Page >

AF 447 Thread No. 12

Tech Log The very best in practical technical discussion on the web

AF 447 Thread No. 12

Old 16th Feb 2015, 21:24
  #1041 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Clandestino
Communication, an utterly vital element to Crew Resource Management regardless of aircraft type. Whenever we find ourselves in a situation of ‘unease’ we need to be vocal about what we are thinking but also what we are doing. Once others are aware of your concerns they can be addressed.
That's where Control Columns have the advantage to tell the PM what the PF is trying to achieve.

Whether control input is appropriate is checked on PFD, not by looking at or touching the yoke.
What happens on PFD is not necessarily the consequence of a control input.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 08:42
  #1042 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,587
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Machinbird

Care to elaborate a bit?
Were you the oscillator or the oscillatee?
I was an interested "bystander/bysitter" ....but not for long

Can't say much...but

FWIW, me PM, PF is handflying. On final the aircraft starts abruptly oscillating in roll...Your's truely thinks "WTF" ? Wake vortex/Flight Control problem? Are we controlling the aircraft or not? ... I then see, out of the corner of my eye, the magnitude and phase of the control wheel inputs being applied....Seeing the control wheel fully over with the aircraft already rolling back through wings level and heading towards the control input is a heck of a stimulus/big clue, even I can pick that one up... Roll inputs terminated.. Aircraft stops oscillating and subsequently lands OK.

FDR trace examined by various interested parties. PIO most definitely diagnosed.

Now I'll admit to being an ex "basic" QFI which kind of also colours my POV but there's no doubt in my simple mind that being able to see your colleagues control inputs and see/feel the aircraft's response to the same might sometimes be of just a little use....., but having never flown an "A" I'm not really able to objectively enter the A vs. B debate...

Last edited by wiggy; 17th Feb 2015 at 09:25.
wiggy is online now  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 09:19
  #1043 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Melbourne
Age: 43
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Panic Pull

Why does sidesticks keep getting brought up in the debate about AF-447?

Panic Pull is a syndrome that affects all types of flight control interfaces. I'm just a small time private pilot and it was drummed into us during training to trust the aircraft and don't fall back on your instincts.

I have an idea - what about a stall warning system that gets progressively louder & louder the longer pilots fail to heed it? It might just be enough to get a pilot to "snap out of it" when they've gone into instinctive mode and push the nose down when in a stall.

Also, in Colgan 3407 the stick shaking caused the pilot flying to instinctively pull up and stall. So in some situations a yoke may help the other pilot identify a stall there are other situations where it may actually cause a reflex panic pull. Both systems are completely safe and are equally as prone to "panic pull" type stall situations as we've seen on both types in the past.
Qantas_A380 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 12:54
  #1044 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: W of 30W
Posts: 1,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Qantas_A380
Panic Pull is a syndrome that affects all types of flight control interfaces.
Except that there is no panic pull in AF447, all the time the right seater has been verbalising his concerns, trying to understand the situation.
The time all on board have been fully pulling the sidesticks is at the GPWS warning ... and this is part of the Airbus procedure.
CONF iture is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 15:35
  #1045 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was an interested "bystander/bysitter" ....but not for long
Wiggy, your description of that PIO incident is fairly typical. It usually takes a second person freezing the yoke to stop a PIO because the the flying pilot is too immersed in the problem to realize what is going on.
Afterwards, your PF was probably very confused about what had just happened, right?
How big were the roll oscillations?

About all a PNF on an A type aircraft can do is take control. PF will probably be so highly stressed that his/her ears may not work.

FWIW, you are only the third person I've encountered who has seen a PIO up close and personal. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 16:48
  #1046 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Winchester
Posts: 6,587
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Afterwards, your PF was probably very confused about what had just happened, right?
Yep, just a bit...

How big were the roll oscillations?
That, in hindsight, was the interesting bit ...The trace showed a max on the final excursion of merely a tad over 10 degrees, but given the circumstances (night, somewhere on finals) and above all the abruptness of the control reversals it felt like a heck of a lot more....I would hate to experience a roll PIO that really got going...
wiggy is online now  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 17:01
  #1047 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 65
Posts: 7,362
Received 555 Likes on 349 Posts
Clandestino: Wing Commander Spry's point is of course agreed. In other news, fish swim.

As to your bit about manuals, you can't have it both ways.
Either is it "too complicated to explain" or it isn't. Make up your mind.

Thanks you for the usual Clandestino style in playing the internet argument game.
As to your last point: it could happen to anyone.
Indeed.
In other news, fish swim.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 17th Feb 2015, 17:31
  #1048 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
As already said in a AF447 thread, I'm interested by degenerating dutch roll since 1979, and was creating only in 1992 a method to stop it with greater efficiency than just put hand off the stick and feet on the floor. I recovered with bank never more than 30°, lost less than 1000 Ft, in less than 30 seconds (MD83 Sim in Helsinki).
Before that, the other crew -6000 hours on type- lost 11000 Ft, understood nothing, flying right and left on the back, with overspeed, alarms and tutti quanti. The instructor -in flight instructor too- was not able to comment, and rejected the idea to ask me how I had done, himself had many thousands hours flying Learjet....
I never found an editor to publish my method.

1. As Machinbird said it, in AF447 the roll oscillation started immediately, and we know it was after the law change, where the roll rate has been modified (increased with facto 4 if I remember well) and get different from pitch rate.

2. In that situation no need of panic or starttle factor to think " I will immediately get level again pulling the stick right or left to stop the roll" and attention is immediately captured forgetting to watch the pitch. In that bank correction the good pilot is the quickest to counteract the bank change... Imagine your body being suddenly at 10° from vertical ! You think only to get vertical again and don't fall (I liked Machinbird's snake comparison!)
Since that first moment, if never trained to that situation in the Sim and theory of systems, you are on the bad way...

The crash of the KC-135 in Kyrgistan in a dutch roll shows that roll PIO was not enough taught..… when taught - in airlines it is never taught.

Last edited by roulishollandais; 18th Feb 2015 at 01:48. Reason: trying to improve the text and supress source of confusion…
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 18th Feb 2015, 14:41
  #1049 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How big were the roll oscillations? That, in hindsight, was the interesting bit ...The trace showed a max on the final excursion of merely a tad over 10 degrees, but given the circumstances (night, somewhere on finals) and above all the abruptness of the control reversals it felt like a heck of a lot more....I would hate to experience a roll PIO that really got going...
I would like to point out to the casual observers here, that the PIO here that Wiggy described was less in amplitude than the AF447 initial roll excursions (if I correctly understand the meaning of the 10 degree roll readout of Wiggy's example.)

One way a problem can occur is when the flying pilot tries to zero the roll rate rather than just bring the wings back to level. When the roll rate is high enough, the eye is drawn to the motion and it is easy then with a large, inherently slow rolling aircraft to predict the roll rate and provide a synchronous opposite phase aileron input. When you start responding to rate signals though, you advance the timing of your control inputs by 90 degrees of phase angle and this has the effect of driving an oscillation. You can see this effect in the chart I posted here: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/53975...ml#post8868131

There have been tests run on the threshold roll rate needed to trigger a roll rate cancelling response from a pilot. From memory, it is in the 10-11 degrees per second rate which AF447 achieved in its initial roll oscillations.

I would hate to experience a roll PIO that really got going..
I would like to echo that comment. Until you have experienced a PIO/APC event, you cannot imagine the impact it can have on your ability to control the aircraft.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 02:09
  #1050 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: U.S.
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Machinbird,

Excellent post. Do you happen to have a pointer to the research on role rate threshold to gain that pilot response? Anything you might recall would be helpful.
seagull967 is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 11:22
  #1051 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Machinbird,
In your figure the roll rate is maximum/minimum when the roll angle is zero (wings passing the level position).
The important is to train roll oscilations in simulator.as well as law of flight transitions .
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 17:24
  #1052 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Planet earth
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Question FAA

Interesting to note that the FAA places more emphasis on jet upset recovery than in the EASA and in Europe.

Airbus does little training on recovery from unusual attitudes, re PIO, etc, in their Type Rating as well.

This should be improved on in Europe. no ?
Jimmy Hoffa Rocks is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 20:01
  #1053 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: florida
Age: 81
Posts: 1,617
Received 68 Likes on 23 Posts
PIO in a FBW jet

Not sure if we all understand the "feel" of the roll/pitch commands in most FBW implementations, and what you see and get when stirring the stick.

The best I can find is the majority of FBW jets command roll rate with yokes or sticks or sidesticks. Not bank angle, but roll rate. Anybody else here with a different experience?

The Viper roll rate could be trimmed, as could the gee command for pitch. Airbus appears to be pure roll rate for lateral stick and the gee command is corrected for pitch with fore/aft stick( and you can't trim for roll rate or gee). The 'bus also stops you at certain bank angles if in the various laws above "direct".

So if you let go of the stick you are gonna get a zero roll rate command for the 'bus and trimmed rate command for the Viper. You may not maintain your bank angle, but the system is giving her all it can. With my leading edge flap failure configuration I could not trim out for roll. But could trim yaw. I had to hold 16 - 17 pounds of left stick until I landed.

So to help roll problems or roll rocking you relax pressure/degrees of stick displacement and then go from there. The computer will try to keep you at the trimmed roll rate - zero for the 'bus. If the bank angle keeps increasing or decreasing, then you have problems with the control surfaces or a truly screwed HAL. The exercise is even easier than with the old conventional controls whether direct from cables or hydraulics.

You only get into trouble trying to deal with unusual roll rates ( and maybe some yaw back and forth). We saw that with the 'bus outta JFK when the tail came off and the KC-135 in one of the 'stans.

I can understand the inertia effects for a big jet like the 'bus or 777 or .... Even if HAL is doing its best, roll may take a second or two or three to stop. I bet it also took a second or two to establish a high roll rate, huh?

enuf of flight control laws and implementations from this old fart...
gums is offline  
Old 19th Feb 2015, 23:30
  #1054 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
enuf of flight control laws and implementations from this old fart...
As one old fart to another , roll direct is not a roll rate law. I know you know this, but it somehow got omitted in your story.

That is one of those step changes that can happen when control laws change and that the pilot flying had better be aware of.

Problem is, the law changes are not enunciated verbally by the aircraft system, and if the aircraft suddenly rolls sharply in response to a now excessive pilot roll input, the pilot may not see the annunciation on his PFD for a long time which can allow other significant problems to develop.

Instead the aircraft seems to prefer to play C chords and shout loud Stall-Stall warnings that are rapidly tuned out by a crew that needs a quieter environment to figure out WTF just happened.
Anyone else think there might be room for improvement in the annunciation of Control Law changes?
Machinbird is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 08:32
  #1055 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Thank you to the both to share your precious experience

Originally Posted by gums
The Viper roll rate could be trimmed, as could the gee command for pitch.
Originally Posted by Machinbird
Problem is, the law changes are not enunciated verbally by the aircraft system, and if the aircraft suddenly rolls sharply in response to a now excessive pilot roll input, the pilot may not see the annunciation on his PFD for a long time which can allow other significant problems to develop.
Wonderful Viper's systems ! And, of course, pilots were trained to use these trims Airbus may Copy better and learn from our dear old farts

Last edited by roulishollandais; 20th Feb 2015 at 08:40. Reason: second quote, authors of quotes
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 08:33
  #1056 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Correr es mi destino por no llevar papel
Posts: 1,422
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by GoldenRivett
Better tell BAE they are wasting their time then.

"The biggest drawback of the “passive” sidesticks now used in civil aircraft is the lack of control feedback from the aircraft or the other pilot."
"This ensures both sidesticks move together in response to both pilot and autopilot commands, providing crew situational awareness equivalent to conventional pilot controls, says BAE."
I don"t and have never intended to. If technology in 2010s can render force feedback sidesticks as useful and reliable as artificial feel systems of 1960ies or no-feel sidesticks of 1980ies - good for everybody. That they will provide better SA is marketing hype as much as "My concierge can fly it" or "Our aeroplanes feel natural to pilots" were.

Originally Posted by GoldenRivett
Do you have any idea about multi-crew operations?
I am not subject of this thread. Do you have any relevant question?

Originally Posted by Confiture
Originally Posted by Clandestino
I made it pretty clear who originally posted it so I object your misattribution.

Originally Posted by CONFiture
What happens on PFD is not necessarily the consequence of a control input.
Ah, we are getting somewhere. So why would F-GZCP first follow the stick inputs, then abruptly stop following them?

Originally Posted by wiggy
FDR trace examined by various interested parties. PIO most definitely diagnosed.
Were interested parties interested enough to provide report?

Originally Posted by CONFiture
Except that there is no panic pull in AF447,
Originally Posted by BEA
After autopilot disconnection the nose-up inputs produced a load factor of up to
1.6 g, that’s to say 1.4 g if the turbulence component is excluded. Maintaining a
high pitch attitude first resulted, when the aeroplane had sufficient speed, in a fast
climb speed (up to 7,000 ft/min) and then in a rapid increase in the angle of attack.
There are couple of videos with stick positions around, if someone finds graph-reading too strenuous.

Originally Posted by Lonewolf 50
As to your bit about manuals, you can't have it both ways.
Either is it "too complicated to explain" or it isn't. Make up your mind.
That's not the way things work in the real world. Whether message is understood largely depends on receiving side too. Manual explains it very adequately for someone who will later go on and try it in aeroplane. Whoever tries to malign Airbus FCS without ever experiencing it must indulge in proclaiming the manual incomprehensible because its content do not support the claim that FBW really is dangerous per se.

Originally Posted by roullisholandais
As already said in a AF447 thread, I'm interested by degenerating dutch roll since 1979, and was creating only in 1992 a method to stop it with greater efficiency than just put hand off the stick and feet on the floor. I recovered with bank never more than 30°, lost less than 1000 Ft, in less than 30 seconds (MD83 Sim in Helsinki).
Before that, the other crew -6000 hours on type- lost 11000 Ft, understood nothing, flying right and left on the back, with overspeed, alarms and tutti quanti. The instructor -in flight instructor too- was not able to comment, and rejected the idea to ask me how I had done, himself had many thousands hours flying Learjet....
I never found an editor to publish my method
Sorry to disappoint you, you can get no patent on this one. DP Davies was here before.

Originally Posted by Machinbird
I would like to echo that comment. Until you have experienced a PIO/APC event, you cannot imagine the impact it can have on your ability to control the aircraft.
And if you read about PIO in relevant publications, you can see that your interpretation of roll disturbances after AP threw the towel in as serious PIO are extreme exaggerations.

Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
Interesting to note that the FAA places more emphasis on jet upset recovery than in the EASA and in Europe.
Because you say so or you have references?

Originally Posted by Jimmy Hoffa Rocks
Airbus does little training on recovery from unusual attitudes, re PIO, etc, in their Type Rating as well.
Airbus does type ratings?!? Will I be asked again if I know something about airline ops?

Originally Posted by gums
Not sure if we all understand the "feel" of the roll/pitch commands in most FBW implementations
I am sure you all don't. See examples:

Originally Posted by gums
The best I can find is the majority of FBW jets command roll rate with yokes or sticks or sidesticks. Not bank angle, but roll rate.
Every aeroplane commands roll rate with lateral yoke/stick displacement. Difference on FBW Airbi is that it is constant with displacement and independent of speed/config/loading.

Originally Posted by gums
The 'bus also stops you at certain bank angles if in the various laws above "direct".
"Alternate", not "direct".

Originally Posted by gums
Airbus appears to be pure roll rate for lateral stick and the gee command is corrected for pitch with fore/aft stick( and you can't trim for roll rate or gee).
Gee command in Airbus is also corrected for roll up to 33 deg bank.

Originally Posted by gums
You only get into trouble trying to deal with unusual roll rates ( and maybe some yaw back and forth). We saw that with the 'bus outta JFK when the tail came off and the KC-135 in one of the 'stans.
Could you please explain how can one manage to find unusual roll rates in the accidents of AA587 and Reach 806? Before airframe failures, that is.

Originally Posted by gums
The Viper roll rate could be trimmed, as could the gee command for pitch.
Originally Posted by roullishollandais
Wonderful Viper's systems ! And, of course, pilots were trained to use these trims Airbus may Copy better and learn from our dear old farts
G trim is useful as one can trim it to 1 for patrol and 0 to achieve instant unloading during ACM by letting go of stick. Roll trim is nice to have when your external stores get asymmetric. Lack of these features will surely prevent Airbus 330 from ever getting accepted as an air superiority fighter.
Clandestino is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 08:51
  #1057 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Clandestino
No patent wanted for safety !
It seems Learjet did not consider Davies had the solution to divergent dutch roll when they taught rapid pedal sharing , the lethal method used in AA587 against wake turbulence oscillations.
And airlines did never teach Davies' method, AF nor others. The AF447 crew did not seem to know it.
roulishollandais is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2015, 23:48
  #1058 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Not far from a big Lake
Age: 82
Posts: 1,454
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinbird
I would like to echo that comment. Until you have experienced a PIO/APC event, you cannot imagine the impact it can have on your ability to control the aircraft.

Originally Posted by Clandestino
And if you read about PIO in relevant publications, you can see that your interpretation of roll disturbances after AP threw the towel in as serious PIO are extreme exaggerations.
Words of a gentleman who has obviously never experienced a PIO event.
Machinbird is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 02:33
  #1059 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Wanderlust
Posts: 3,411
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Dutch roll on B707 has no similarity in Airbus. 707 was notorious for that and whatever little time I had on 707 I experienced it on a commercial flight, yaw damper failure kept causing vicious yaw and turn till I think the weight and altitude reduced to a certain level. I was trained for yaw damper failure in A310 simulator and it was nothing as compared to 707. Airbuses are not prone to this. So KC 135 comparison is futile.
vilas is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2015, 15:17
  #1060 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 65
Posts: 7,362
Received 555 Likes on 349 Posts
Originally Posted by Clandestino
That's not the way things work in the real world. Whether message is understood largely depends on receiving side too. Manual explains it very adequately for someone who will later go on and try it in aeroplane.
In your own words.
It's the place in manuals where "needs to know" meets "unable to understand".
Suggest you learn what a training audience is. Your cavalier assertion, underlined, is at odds with good training methodology. Caveat: if your assertion behind that line is that one or two of the three in that AF crew were unworthy of certification and unable learn this oh so complicate thing, but became regular crew at AF, that is another matter. Is that your position?

Your point on the dubious percentage of retention of whatever training was indeed received by the flight deck crew in AF 447 is not entirely masked by your failure in argument. As you noted previously, a significant number of other crews had similar problems and sorted things out.
If Aırbus wrote "maintains vertical flightpath" instead of "maintains 1G corrected for pitch up to 33 deg bank", already high number of confused manual readers would increase even more.
In training, you first learn it in the book and other ground based instruction, then these days you seem to try it out in a sim, and then later you may experience it in an aircraft. Or you may not be permitted to try it out in the aircraft. Reasons for that vary.
So why did Airbus made the system that is so difficult to describe? To make it simple to operate!
Your logic failure is highlighted in bold. That cause and effect you assert is neither necessary nor sufficient. Making something simple to operate does not require it to be difficult to describe. Note: your assertion comes across that it is somehow necessary to make it too hard to understand. If that wasn't your intended meaning, then perhaps what you meant to say didn't come across.

Enough carping, thanks for the usual.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.