TD Howdy.

Pointed questions generally have a point, that is true, but the ones I write down are as consistent with a round table discussion of accident reconstruction as with a courtroom drama.

The Pilots are not charged, so your opinion that they represent a 'defense' are thus far off the mark.

As I have posted here before, the latitude you point out re: the 'Pilots' inures more to the Airline than to the crew.

Latitude by Proxy, then? One cannot "protect the crew" without hiding the Line's culpability. Is this conscious? Ever the sceptic, my answer is YES.

They HIRE, They FIRE, and hopefully, they TRAIN. Taken at face value, one is hard pressed to establish any conclusion at this point that does not roundly condemn the Airline. As it should be.

Foot dragging on the Probes, lack of high altitude APPROACH TO STALL recovery, and a very apparent lack of training in automatic handoff with LAW degrade at CRUISE. Let's be generous to the 'crew' and also include a lack of training in recognition of OVERSPEED (or its LACK).

Pressuring for a 'quieting' of the discussion defeats what is gained by having an internet in the first place. The very point of having the freedom to discuss is a commandment to use it.

take care

Does anybody here believe the PF was not at fault by pulling the SS full up for 3 minutes until impact with the ocean?

I know lowering the nose that one time regenerated the stall warning but these guys were not pilots they were computer operators. We need our pilots back flying our airplanes, not computer operators.

Can you imagine one of these computer operators trying to fly a B17 back to England with their talent?

bubbers44


Well... That depends on what you really mean by your question. If you mean "were the PF's actions the primary cause (or one of the primary causes) of this crash?", then, from what we know at this point, the answer is "yes."

If you mean "were the PF's actions the sole cause or contributing factor to this crash?", then the answer is clearly "no". In other words, it took a lot more than his actions alone to bring this aircraft down. (I.E, that night, during the event, one would include: Actions of PNF, inaction(s) of PNF, actions/decisions of Captain, and, as a contributing factor of course: pitots. Other contributing factors: AF training, AF SOP's, airline hiring and training in general, intrumentation perhaps, etc etc.)

Your use of the word "fault" muddies the waters in terms of accident analysis. But if you insist, and really do mean to ask, "Was it the PF's fault the a/c crashed?", the answer can only be, "partly."

Shame?
 

Blubbers & Co. of the Sensationalist Anti-future Brigade ... Your soundbites make me sick!

You and others have the audacity to flippantly remark that pilots are not able to fly their aircraft? Shame on you.

with respect daelight that is exactly what the FAA, manufacturers and some pilots are now beginning to accept. Not the fault of the pilots but industry has been allowed to dumb down a little too much.

Obviously his actions were wrong, the question is why?
Also he was not alone. PNF and CAPT failed to identify the situation. PNF appeared early on to nag him to "go back down" which was ignored. To me the collective delusion, bar room level communications makes the incident even more puzzling. I have struggled to explain nose up by them applying wrong procedures, or bad instruments, side stick input failures. But nothing fits. Near the end the PF confides he has been nose up max all the way! Like it is the normal thing to do and he tried his best to pull out of a dive or something.
Why is it that when we look at the recorded data do their actions make no sense. Far too simple to say that all 3 failed. Only a video would answer the question - which is what BEA are recommending going forward. To me there is a piece missing. Is it possible that the recorded data differ from the actual displayed data on the PFD etc?

Hi,

Not sure
This can be also a false interpretation of what they seen
People often see things differently from what is reality
After a car accident .. when eyewitnesses are asked .. they will often tell a different story from that of other

going forward
 

"Only a video would answer the question - which is what BEA are recommending going forward"

xcitation, what does "going forward" mean?

Xcitation, you ask “Near the end the PF confides he has been nose up max all the way! Like it is the normal thing to do and he tried his best to pull out of a dive or something. Why is it that . . . ?”

PF’s references to “crazy speed” and his persistent holding nose up suggested to some that he confused mach buffet with pre- stall buffet, and high noise with high speed rather than high AoA, which kept him thinking all the way down that he had an overspeed problem. What do you think?

kwateow,

Here's BEA's summary of their recommendations on flight recorders:

"One recommends that the regulatory authorities require that aircraft undertaking public transport flights with passengers be equipped with an image recorder that makes it possible to observe the whole of the instrument panel. Another recommends defining strict rules relating to the use of such recordings."

Hi,

Another more "black box" to retrieve .......
Why not electrodes placed on the heads of the pilots to record the activities of their neurons ? :ooh:
Another more "black box" to retrieve ......
More "black boxes" = more safe flight ?

well actually it does. We would be better able to work out why something happened. I remind you that in stall situations on other less modern aircraft the crew did exactly the same and pulled back on the stick.

We will never know why but images may well help to explain why. Once we know why we can develop a safer system.

Hi,

Not so funny ..
as the pilots unions (their primary concern is of course the safety of the flights for their members and the passengers as all we know ... ) will refuse it .. as they already in the past refused video recording in cockpit...
Or maybe a extra increase of wages as incentive will make change their view on those safety problems ? :8

Safety Concerns

I doubt that .... in the end we only think we know why and still will address the same contributors.

We know the leading contributors now ... let's get on with putting the resources there rather than waiting to satisfying our last subjective doubts with video recordings.

Just look at the CVR, do they prove anything? or do they just focus us to consider possibilities?

well it is a dilemma I accept. However every little bit helps I would say. Video would require strict controls and a short recording period. Most accidents happen pretty quickly.

But I believe they would bring something positive to accident investigation.

Thales Cleared
 

Simultaneous reject of ADs. All three. This suggests Ice was not at work, but something else. Entry into upwelling airmass, which decreases the speed readings. What else is affected by a large shift in wind direction? AoA vanes, which would read (again, simultaneously) falsely high, perhaps quite high. What would the AutoFlight do? Decrease thrust, and PITCH DOWN, Another result? WIND SHEAR, and TCAS action.

As the a/c responds, the computers have by now rejected the airspeeds as too quickly divergent from cruise speed, and the a/p drops out.

The a/c has 1000fpm UP/VS, the Nose is DOWN 4 degrees from cruise, and due a tangential entry into the upwelling vertical, a ROLL (Left wing rise, to be more precise).

This is all on the traces, (save for the tangential entry) for the last four seconds of autoflight. I repeat, it is on the traces supplied by BEA.

The false high AA's and low "speed" have caused a spurious STALLWARN in the cockpit, as PF takes over. All but this have been done to death. Anyone? TurbineD?

So would a "resident" LKas (Last Known airspeed), have helped? Subject to inertial updating? A reserve Probe, to enter an abruptly presenting "new" airmass, and sample the "new" attitude dependent a/s? Because if this is what happened, then the Probes are fine, and the Autoflight needs some serious work.

@safety

Obviously you don't like these questions.

So what the hell with a (still) living PPRuNer ?

Get along with the facts!

there is nothing mysterious about pilots not being in tune with their aircraft. Scary yes, mysterious no.