Actually, we do not know that. Right seat had no restraints fastened, see report.

I too, found it extremely surprising, that the Captain did not automatically retake his seat immediately.
It seems to have been accepted without much comment...

...perhaps because he was assumed to be focusing on taking-in the situation, perhaps because he was still disoriented and not immediately aware of the extreme emergency.

Think I've said before that from his seat, he would then have initiated a full scan, likely including the trim-wheel!

I would say this was more than surprising, and tantamount to condemning the flight, although this is seen and easily said in retrospect, that appears to be the case.

SLF

1. Pilot initiated roll left, and Nose up. There's PITCH. Don't confuse aft stick with anything but an adjustment in PITCH. You know different? Better? Some wags puffed..."Sit on yer hands". Wrong, she needed handling. So far, then, PF has addressed PITCH. There was discussion here by A330 pilots that 5 degrees might have been appropriate, she'd be climbing with that, so why does climb convey a problem to PNF?

2. POWER? The belief is N1 was set at 85%. Evidently, it satisfied the PF.
She had been cruising at .8M, why change? He then neglected to move the levers, why?

3. Captain D left the RHS in command, "He's taking my place"......

Admiralty Law? Splendid.

Mostly, Sir, I take exception to your "closed book" attitude.

BEA have not made conclusions. Every syllable of your post is conjecture. Well founded? I'll grant you that it is.

When Captain returned, he was not treated to STALL WARN, the two pilots were at odds, and he had trouble assessing the situation, apparently. RHS had no restraints latched; it is not impossible the PF was prepping for an egress from the cockpit after water "landing". LHS had lap only, perhaps he too, was starting to prepare for exit. If the Ocean was visible, the attitude and airspeed would not have been remarkably different from a vanilla short final. Nose up, velocity ~ 150 mph, etc. The sink would have stopped a faint heart, but...........

CPL, retired.

Hindsight is so Easy....
 

Having a good idea of the workload following a discrepency in instruments and confusion that happens when you are not "at the wheel" at the time...I can imagine how things went from bad to worse without understanding why...To me this is the most important issue...how to stop having professionals put in such a situation. Forget the final CVR...as many have said...and think of why the problem was not diagnosed expediently...I have heard of many checklists that ask for something to be done on the third page that should have been done ASAP....Boeing and AB alike (before someone insinuates either is better).
To blame the pilots is an easy way out...and a way to have the mistake occur again,,,,
Oh Bol..cks...I'm not a pilot...only someone in the aviation business for the last 35 years...so I guess I know nothing....

LYMAN

My highlighting in red, but that is utter rubbish. Having tried to "simulate" the input in an A330 simulator the pitch required to initiate and maintain the "zoom" was significant and took great effort and had to be HELD! The PF appears to have had no idea what he was trying to do. You do NOT pitch a widebody at 35,000' to 15 degrees nose up. The A/C was zoomed to a stall well above REC MAX Altitude.

(ATPL and still flying 40+ years)

Why are you conflating the zoom with the PF's initial input? They are not connected, at least not initially. You in the sim needed what to intitiate the "ZOOM"? There's the rubbish, being unable to see the LOC as a development, not an instantaneous artifact.

You are way ahead of yourself, and the climb. Once input, the PF had no reference (back) to his attitude at handoff, it became a guessing game.

His panel displays are unknown. It was NOT his goal, as was yours, to establish a wicked climb of 3000 feet. His attitude increased NU incrementally, yet here's you saying he slammed full aft stick and Held it!

He did NOT.

LYMAN

Clutching at straws again and with your argument damning the pilot even more as if he had NO reference i.e. PFD what was he doing "flying" the A/C?? He "held" aft sidestick he did not do it incrementally as you are suggesting.

His displays were not recorded. No one has said they were non-existent.

The climb was commanded by the FC, via g demand. Why would you expect to gain instantly 15 degrees in the sim in AL2? It took the time the computer deemed necessary.

His working theory was O-Speed, not climb. You are assuming all manner of things here, I do not have the cement thinking you do. The Stall was entered unusually, not that that would have helped them determine they were stalled. You are conflating what happened as you see it, with some need to condemn the Pilot(s) for missing something you see "clearly".

Lyman it's obvious you have no grasp of aviation fundamentals. You manufacture complete fantasies with no regard for facts. The released CVR as it is makes it clear the Captain never assumes actual command of the plane.

Do you have any actual understanding of what "pitch and power" actually means? From your comments again I think not.

We have no indications that his panel displays were abnormal in anyway. The PM is well aware of the planes actions and makes multiple comments that are specific to the planes attitude.

The initial climb was commanded by the pilot, there is no evidence anywhere of an uncommanded "autoclimb". Further the elevator trim wound up to it's maximum gradually in response to the pilots continued SS deflection.

Your total garbage is of no value here, the plane stalled because the PF manually flew it into a stall. It stayed stalled because he kept it that way...

do you have any idea of aviation fundamentals
 

After forty years of flying freight around from a to b (no pun intended), I'd say he has some idea.

Actually, I think we do have an indication that his displays may (MAY) have been abnormal.

I'll leave it to the gents over on the Tech Log section to give minute details, but the PM switched the PF's ATT HDG and AIR DATA over to FO3. I see no reason to switch the ATT HDG input from norm to FO on 3, other than the PM seeing something on the FO screens that was apparently incorrect. If you want to research it, the info is in Interim 3.

Just a popin, but when Captain returns, he is aware RHS is handling, and "assumes" the RHS data is current and correct. There is no comment to update the Captain of the discrepancy suggested by LHS monitor and switching of RHS Display.

So there are now two Pilots watching and reacting to RHS Panel? That is a tacit vote of confidence in what may be the downfall of the a/c. If reluctant before, now LHS is doubly unwilling to take over, or correct/command the ship.

imho

@TTex600:

It may have been a partial failure (i.e. loss of speed, as they would all have been getting), or if the RHS air data computer appeared to be getting dodgy pitot and static input then it may have dropped altimeter as well. In the sim, the closest visual approximation my colleague could get was to fail the ADC on my (RHS) side completely, which left me with attitude (artificial horizon) only. I could read the altimeter and see it winding down on the standby though, so I used that rather than make the TRE switch the source for me.

A possible theory, and I'm not saying it's true, is that manual handling was trained in terms of following the Flight Director, and the PF could have been referring to losing that.

The other question is, if the PF really was referring to losing all indications - why did he not hand over control at that point?

Just a request, but can we have access to the gents who are advising you, Doze? This middleman thing is dizzymaking. I'd hate to call Bravo Sierra on actual flyers.

They have requested anonymity, and in light of the huge favours that they've done me on top of the fact that I gave my word, I'm obliged to say no.

Also, the difference between "flyer" and "non-flyer" is incredibly variable and can be as much as the latter having no clue whatsoever, or as little as the latter having less or no practical experience of the systems they've studied theoretically. I've been on here a while and seen the whole gamut of wise words and poor - even dangerous - suggestions coming from pilots and non-pilots alike.

Dozy, if you feel the need to make a point, just please make it. No need to use one of my posts to advance your agenda. You, once again, answer questions I do not ask. You counter arguments I do not make. If you want to make a point just make it. No need to address it to me. I'm happy to defend what I think, but not what you think I was thinking. If you need clarification, I'll try and provide such.

With that, here's today's clarification.

Back to the topic, SLFinAZ mentioned that we have no indications that his displays were abnormal. I think that the PM's action to switch the PF's ATT HG and AIR DATA inputs to F/O3 is a plausible indication that the PM's screens were abnormal.


As far as your simulator experience, computer generated information doesn't much impress me if you haven't realized that already. I'd really rather look at a gyro than a EFIS, and a ASI than an EFIS, and a real peanut gyro than another computer generated mini EFIS. And, I'd rather go by my multi thousands of hours in an Airbus than by the Sim. It's just a computer after all.:ok:

I'm not trying to make a point at all, just taking part in the same discussion we all are. And technically with UAS DISAGREE, *all* the PFDs were "abnormal" for a certain period, the question is to what degree. We know for certain what the LHS was seeing, and right now that's all we have to go on.

You know I don't have to tell you that the modern EFIS instruments are powered by gyros and accelerometers in much the same way as the steam gauges of old - the only substantive difference is in how they are displayed.

Not really interested in the names, merely in your admission that you are arrogating OPS. (Other People's Stuff), without attribution.

Thanks, then.

If you're referring to the upset control techniques and the like, you forgot "with their permission and encouragement". If by that you think it was someone else sitting in the seat of the sim manipulating the controls and I'm just passing their findings on, then I assure you you're mistaken. A few more weeks training and I might even be good enough to be a concierge! ;)

Article in Popular Mechanics on AF447
 

Sorry if this kind of article is considered as laughable by the wise crowd here, but I (SLF) have found it being an interesting reading:
What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447
Please don't flame me. I'm not saying that what's written in there is the true story. I don't have a clue really. It just makes sense to my uninformed mind.

Edit: link fixed - sorry and thanks for pointing it out