I've been in this business a long time and around Airbus FBW aircraft for close to 20 years, and I would never have envisioned that a pilot would respond to those specific circumstances in the way that he did, nor that once it happened, a crew would be unable to get out of it with over 3 minutes to react. If the investigation doesn't help to determine why this is the case and why it made sense to them at the time, then the outcome will be wholly unsatisfying. Alas, I fear that we will be left unsatisfied. But based on some of the input in four of five extended threads on this topic, crews (in some airlines) seem to be on the receiving end of systems and situation awareness, and even some practical (simulator?) training. That's a good first step, don't you think? |
J.O.... I don't have an aunt Sally so I'm not sure what you mean. Comes from a maths mnemonic "Please Excuse My Dear Aunt Sally"; Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition (and) Subtraction. Put another way, it could be said that those who remember it have been around too long! |
at easy we are practicing what we think happened in our simulator check. Having had it explained on the white board, demo'd in slow time, knowing what was about to happen, I have to say that it is the most confusing set of indications I have ever seen.
How many of us Airbus pilots realised that the STALL STALL STALL silenced below 60kts? (and why would we). I understand the theory of what happened now, but there is no way I could of comprehended it happening in real time the way it did to the poor souls on 447. The understanding is coming out, but of course a lot is best guess. |
Who would think any pilots could find a way to put an Airbus below 60 knots airborn? I don't think any aircraft is idiot proof.
|
Originally Posted by Lord Bracken
Secondly, Sully's A320 remained in Normal Law (powered by the APU and RAT) throughout the ditching, with all flight control protections active until splashdown.
Great piloting yes, but he had some help. Do you think that experienced pilot needed help to not stall ? Remaining in Normal Law prevented that experienced pilot to manage the flare at his convenience. But maybe better to go there A320 and the Miracle on the Hudson to discuss further. |
The RAT doesn't deploy unless you lose both engine generators in all aircraft I have flown and the APU would not have been on for that short flight because they could bleed air off the engines. I didn't bother to respond because I knew most people knew.
Also the autopilot being worthless meant how could it have had anything to do with the outcome of the Hudson landing. He was a highly skilled pilot and the autopilot did nothing to help him. He didn't need stall protection with his skill landing in the Hudson. None of us in any Boeing would have stalled so why did it help him? It didn't. Why do Airbus pilots always think the only way to fly is by automation? I don't understand it. Now I read an article about letting automation rotate the airplanes to prevent tail strikes. Have you ever had a tail strike? 23,000 hrs and zero. |
The RAT doesn't deploy unless you lose both engine generators in all aircraft I have flown and the APU would not have been on for that short flight because they could bleed air off the engines. I didn't bother to respond because I knew most people knew. Although the flight crew was only able to complete about one-third of the Engine Dual Failure checklist, immediately after the bird strike, the captain did accomplish one critical item that the flight crew did not reach in the checklist: starting the APU. Starting the APU early in the accident sequence proved to be critical because it improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that electrical power was available to the airplane. Further, if the captain had not started the APU, the airplane would not have remained in normal law mode. This critical step would not have been completed if the flight crew had simply followed the order of the items in the checklist. The NTSB concludes that, despite being unable to complete the Engine Dual Failure checklist, the captain started the APU, which improved the outcome of the ditching by ensuring that a primary source of electrical power was available to the airplane and that the airplane remained in normal law and maintained the flight envelope protections, one of which protects against a stall. |
I recall them starting the APU but since the engine generators never went off line it never came on line but it was a good back up. The engines never totally failed, they just couldn't produce thrust, the engine generators were the only power supplying electrical power when they ditched. The APU would have picked it up if they had failed however. It was a good decision.
|
Who would think any pilots could find a way to put an Airbus below 60 knots airborn? With minimal 'handling' demarcation between stalled & un-stalled other than the turbulence masked buffet, the speed at which it 'gently' mushed into the stalled condition was somewhere around 185KIAS, at a point in time where the KIAS on one or more displays may very well have been temporarily available to them, as valid air data was intermittently recovered at numerous points. Without re-reading Interim #3, I believe it settled in somewhere around what would have been equivalent to 150KIAS on the displays had the air data sensors not been corrupted essentially by actual flight path versus body angle. This is the reason for pages & pages of discussion about full time stand alone AOA availability, not connected to the ADR's and their 60 knot threshold for validity. (Correct me if I've stated something in error here.) |
Originally Posted by OK465
the speed at which it 'gently' mushed into the stalled condition was somewhere around 185KIAS, at a point in time where the KIAS on one or more displays may very well have been temporarily available to them,
Without re-reading Interim #3, I believe it settled in somewhere around what would have been equivalent to 150KIAS |
What can be changed assist in avoiding this kind of accident?
This is a very long thread now. I am perhaps foolish to add to it further, but here goes...
It is clear that the pilots on the day (or night) were indeed idiots. However, I think it is fair to say that we are all capable of being idiots on our day also. It is desirable but impossible to assure that every person has the complete skill set or training to deal with every eventuallity. Therefore, I think that even though working on better training and weeding out bad pilots is of some assistance it will never be able to ensure all pilots are adequate, properly trained, or will not have lapses in there handling of situations. Notwithstanding the above, I think there are two things that could and should be changed that may well have given the crew assistance. First, when the autopilot disengaged there should have been an explicit message that it did so because of air speed indication anomalies. Second, clearly the stall warning should continue regardless of airspeed except in specific circumstances ie if you are airborn at significant altitude there really is no reason for the stall warning to be discontinued... These matters are easily corrected and are clear failures in logic. No one will ever know if these changes would have saved the fateful flight but I am sure that they would have been of some assistance in overcoming the confused state that the pilots had fallen into. In addition, "Pull up...Pull up" was perhaps not as helpfull as it could have been in that it was exorting the pilots to do exactly the opposite to that which they needed to do. It was in the event less helpful than "don't crash...don't crash" would have been. What it was really trying to say was that they were loosing altitude and getting close to the ground. A careful review of the messaging that pilot get is needed in order to at least avoid ones that are not helpful and ensure that helpful ones are not disabled. |
HN39: Thanks for the correction. I personally believe your graphs are probably very close to the event as it unfolded.
edit: BTW on page 92, it shows max altitude of 37,924 reached at 2:11:10 with ISIS CAS of 184 recovered 3 seconds earlier, so they were still climbing, at least ballistically, from 207 down to 184. The benign 'mush' started at this time?? |
Report: Cobham B712 at Kalgoorlie on Oct 13th 2010, stick shaker on two approaches
Humans behind the plane instead of ahead. :(:confused::sad: Cheers. |
Originally Posted by OK465
BTW on page 92, it shows max altitude of 37,924 reached at 2:11:10 with ISIS CAS of 184 recovered 3 seconds earlier, so they were still climbing, at least ballistically, from 207 down to 184. The benign 'mush' started at this time??
|
AF 447
I find it very disturbing that so much reliance is placed on computerised flight systems which apparently are not fully capable of informing the ‘human’ pilots of the aircrafts actual status in flight.
Yes, there were audio stall warnings on the flight deck of AF 447, but did any of these warnings advise the pilots to decrease AOA? No. Why not? Multiple audio warnings and multiple ECAM messages on the flight deck only serve to distract the pilots from the job in hand. Passenger aircraft should be designed to give the pilots the option of disabling all automated systems and of taking full manual control when required. Pilots should be trained and tested to ensure that they are skilled enough to do this. As I understand it, this is not currently the case.. When I and my family fly as pax, I want to be confident that the flight crew can actually fly the aircraft manually and are not totally reliant on it’s automated systems. Can anyone assure me that this is the case? |
Carjockey
Yes, there were audio stall warnings on the flight deck of AF 447, but did any of these warnings advise the pilots to decrease AOA? No. Why not? Multiple audio warnings and multiple ECAM messages on the flight deck only serve to distract the pilots from the job in hand. Passenger aircraft should be designed to give the pilots the option of disabling all automated systems and of taking full manual control when required. Pilots should be trained and tested to ensure that they are skilled enough to do this. As I understand it, this is not currently the case.. My only concern is the MPL, which is a whole new topic, this "training" will be fine and dandy for box ticking, but does not instill the life preservation skills that each pilot needs. |
Originally Posted by VGCM66
(Post 7014645)
Report: Cobham B712 at Kalgoorlie on Oct 13th 2010, stick shaker on two approaches
Humans behind the plane instead of ahead. :(:confused::sad: The operator’s recurrent training programs did not address the recovery from a stall or stickshaker activation such that the ongoing competency of their flight crew was not assured. [Minor safety issue] Birgenair, Colgan, AF 447, Ethiopian at Beirut, Perpignan.... and more and it'll carry on until someone figures out that it is not a "minor safety issue". :ugh:[ and it's not a sidestick vs. yoke or control feedback issue either ]. |
infrequentflyer789- and it's not a sidestick vs. yoke or control feedback issue either |
Birgenair was "direct control", as was Colgan Air, Aero Peru, Ethiopian and many more. But let's not allow the facts to get in the way of a good rant.
|
Yes.....BUT.....in this particular situation, I think they would have survived with Direct Control of their aircraft rather than some computer.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 17:29. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.