@CONF - And what did the Chairman of Boeing say to Tex Johnson after that little exercise?

@GF - it's not an excuse, it's just the way it was. Nick Warner's crash was to do with FMC (i.e. autopilot) mode confusion rather than flight laws however.

It's noteworthy how many Bus drivers appear on this thread who seem to diverge on what exactly the flight controls and protections do under different Laws.

It's worth bearing in mind that not all who claim to be 'Bus drivers in fact are, and if they are and don't know, then it says more about them than anything else. The basics are covered pretty well on Wikipedia, fergawd'ssake!

[CAVEAT : I'm not a 'Bus driver, nor even a line pilot, for those who don't already know - never been ashamed to admit it. ]

Dont waste your spit (finger nails)
 

Dear All,

In view of the length that the AF447 thread(s) are reaching, I'm afraid that most of us who care about aviation will have to face the cold reality:

1- The blame will be pinned on the crew (because irrespective of what truly took place, dead guys cant defend themselves).

2- AF will make some amendments to its crew training (to try to prevent this from happening again, and mostly to save face).

3-AB will not be held liable, but will make a few software changes in the background (because doing otherwise would be an admission of guilt).

4-The next of kin will get much less compensation than they deserve (because they don't have AB's and AF's deep pockets and cant afford a hire lobbyists and politicians).

5-The bean counters will consider that accidents such as this one constitute an "acceptable risk" and the whole thing will be filed under the "cost of doing business" category.

6-Back to business as usual and if something like this were to happen again, then something will be done about it but only if it is cheaper than paying compensation/lawyers/politicians/lobbyists/legal fees/courts etc. and the dead will fade into statistical anonymity.

There's my two cents worth.

Regards;

Dozy and CONF,

Concorde was an FBW aircraft (although an earlier generation), and could be and has been barrel-rolled repeatedly.

Unfortunately there is no video....

Dozy wannabe,

Are you a pilot?

aerobatic concorde
 

.

Thats an absurd claim. Where did you get this info from ?

No video is a shame ... but the Big question seems to be : Did it repeatedly get the approval's manufacturer to do so ... ?

saltyfish, do not forget 1A in people's mind : Pilots are cause number 1 for crashes, we need less of them and more automation ...

No, nor do I pretend to be (I would be if I could afford it!). But neither am I an idiot, and I make up for not having controlled an aircraft for real since my AEF Chippy days with a whole bundle of book-learnin'.

@CJ - Concorde's structure is a lot more rigid than your average widebody, as well you know. :)

@cyflier - You'll find out... *gets popcorn*

@CONF - That's because people don't read properly. I think the number banded about is that around 80% of aviation accidents are down to human error. What people don't realise is that number includes maintenance, ground staff and ATC as well as pilots.

re: aerobatic concorde
 

Anecdotal evidence, but trustworthy.

Erm...
I think you'll find 100% are down to human error if you look deep enough.

From the part of the CVR that has everything to do with the impact:

1. The PNF appears to have the suss of the a/c better than PF.

2. PNF repeatedly cautions PF's PITCH and rate excursions.

3. PNF alerts PF to excessive "Lateral Control"

4. PNF's screen was recorded.


Pilot Flying's screen did not show up as recorded. 1+1=2. What did the flying pilot see? Will we hear more of the CVR? Given PF was so clearly unsure of his attitude, is anyone else going to entertain that he could not establish level for a reason? He had ROLL, but unless a determination of the DFDR traces shows conclusively A/P was NOT reselected, a question.


Was The Pilot Flying commanding the climb?

Or was he trimming to it?

If no history of uncommanded climb existed, it would not probably be a question that comes to the fore.

But there is such a history, in the record. One should look for proof that PF was causing the climb to 38. Not the aircraft.

Ingesting an unseen flock of birds into an engine or two is human error?

OK465

HUMAN error, senor, not PILOT ERROR. Twas humans what built an airfield on the flyway. We're all guilty, even those who are not.

A long tale, but it's common knowledge in the Concorde world.

Jean Franchi, one of the French Concorde test pilots, did it repeatedly, until it was spotted by a journalist, who had the common sense of phoning Aerospatiale before publishing his 'scoop''.
As it happened, he was put through directly to André Turcat, then director of Concorde flight test, who, at the time, more or less said "You must have mistaken a Mirage (delta-wing plane) for Concorde. You should know one doesn't roll an aircraft the size of Concorde." Hence the story was never published.

History has never recounted what passed between Turcat and Franchi.... but it was probably in the same style of the original 707 meeting... "I know you've done it. I know it can be done. I know you'll do it again. But please, do it outside the view of nosey journalists."

And yes, Jean did it again....
There is a video of Brian Walpole (BA) where he confirms doing the same kind of barrel roll with Jean Franchi (Organfreak posted the link).
And during a fairly recent conference, Turcat himself also confirmed it. I was there, and I still remember his remark.... "One of the things I most regret was never having done it myself....".

And, slightly O/T, maybe you remember the Concorde "Airport" movie? With the daft looping, and Alain Delon opening the DV window at Mach 2 and firing flares? All the low-altitude flying over the "Alps" (in reality the Pyrénées) in that movie is real, and it was Jean Franchi the pilot. It was before the days of CGI.

Jean Franchi suggested doing a barrel roll in front of the LearJet, instead of the loopy 'looping', but somehow it never happened.
Or maybe one is still on film somewhere, now hidden in an archive....

CJ

That IS looking pretty DEEP. :)

From my perspective as a bird lover and animal rights semi-activist (my dog gets his annual shots), I would say there would also be a measure of avian error involved. :}

Yes, today it can . In areas of known bird migration equipment and checking with people watching those birds know where they are , time , altitude direction , etc... Collecting and disiminated that info cost ressources and money. Someone somewhere has made the decision that this is not cost effective. Hence no detailed warning.
The Hudson A320 bird strike for instance could have been prevented, but at a cost. Probaly a big one, but someone ( a human ) has decided this was not worth the money. We can continue with more such examples if you want .
Yes. ultimately, whether it is FBW programmers, Certification aithorities, someone , a human, is behind. So 100% human error is not far off. That is also what Sydney Dekker is advocating today BTW.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.....

Saltyfish
 

"The beancounters will accept such accidents as acceptable risk"
What a load of bollixs, have you attended a Safety Board? :ugh:

OK465

I cannot agree with you that all aircraft accidents are not down to human error.

In my view birds and lightning are both down to us as we know they both exist where we fly and we chose to press on and fly regardless.

Only humans design, build, develop, service and operate aircraft. God does not - whichever God you have.

JF