I do not think the PF (and the PNF + Captain) made the same basic error as Old Carthusian has made.

What did they see?

**************

Having recovered the contents of the Avionics Bay, and the boxes, will BEA report as to what the Pilots were privy to in the way of displays?

Because from the outset, and to this day, one has difficulty believing that all three pilots missed the Attitude cue, believed the Vario, and were satisfied not to push the nose down. In fact, at one point, Captain says "Climb!". Not likely a result of seeing 15NU on the panel, with a descent of 11-15 thousand fpm. The two are not compatible, and because every wag here wants to be an expert, claim the pilots have stink for think. All Three?

For that matter, what was the command pilot seeing as he took control? Did he have honest data? I have my doubts. Would a simple Back up AH have been a life saver?

The communications twixt 1 and 2 show a distinct lack of common thought. If PF's reads were total duff, why wouldn't he hand off ?

He would, and that is why I think he felt his input was reasonable.

His reads were unreliable. imo.

Likely so... :{

@rudderrudderrat: Yes, very likely!

@Old Carthusian:

[My emboldening above]

With respect, repeating the same incorrect statement multiple times, does not ever make it correct :( Members BOAC, Retired F4, rudderrudderrat etc. are absolutely right in refuting your assertion on this point.

Please consider the other name for the artificial horizon is the attitude indicator. It is not called a climb/decend indicator - it only shows the plane's attitude (relative to the ground). The Wikipedia article on the AI seems a reasonable introduction, and I respectfully suggest that you read it - note that it correctly explains about showing the plane nose-up or nose-down (regarding pitch), and it correctly does not state that nose-up == climbing, since that would be a fallacy.

Attitude indicator - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To summarise:

- When you are climbing, the AI does usually show nose-up attitude.
- When the AI shows nose-up attitude, you are not necessarily climbing.
- Therefore use VSI or altimeter (not the AI), to see if you are climbing/decending.

Does this help to explain the type of replies you've been getting?

[Edited to add "usually" regarding AI indication in climb - turbulance is another factor which alters this indication, and is yet another reason why the AI cannot be relied upon to show climb/decend indication!]

If you had bothered to read all my posts properly you would note that I am perfectly aware of this. Selective quoting is all very well but I am guilty of abbreviating far too much and being too wooly in my terminology. However, given the phantoms that are being chased down here that can be forgiven. Actually I will strive to be a bit more precise in future - after all I can't very well criticise others if I am guilty of the same sin.

Good stuff, guys (and girls?), and really more suited to the wannabee forum, and I fear we are wasting our time with this 'shoal of red herring'. Personally I am relieved to see that the Old Carthusians appear to have no connection with aviation.:mad:

Wrong BOAC - I do have plenty of connection but the rebuke in this case is well taken. Next time - engage brain then type.

How do you know what I "bothered" to do? That's a judgement call you're not qualified to make, unless you're looking over my shoulder at what I'm reading. :)

I have read all your posts in this thread ("properly" is subjective and also depends on the clarity of your postings), and it's definitely not clear that you are aware of the correct interpretation of an AI. I don't claim to be perfect, but I was just trying to help, after believing there was a genuine misunderstanding on your part.

Thanks for explaining how we got into this.

@BOAC - Agreed, I'm stopping here.

At this point, Old Carthusian, you would need to go in a flying school and ask a flight instructor to demonstrate you what the flight instruments and particularly the artificial horizon may or may not indicate regarding what the aircraft is doing.

Just to make sure, what is your experience in instrument flying ?
What is your experience in flying ?

Is this a "You show me yours & I'll show you mine..."?

Hi,

Lyman
Collective hallucination?
You can not rule out this possibility
Read police reports about testimony regarding the UFO's
Lots conclude a collective hallucination

jcjeant. Yes, a possibility of collectively focused interpretation of confusing data. I think that is what existed between the two, prior to Captain's return. A hybrid, though disagreeable "rapprochement" between LHS and RHS.

But, after Captain pops back in, the focus is on him, "What do we do?".

His is the new hope for a solution, and unfortunately, he does not grok the panel(s), nor does he see (relax....) the SS. There is virtually no chance he saw, believed, and acted upon two divergent readings from two separate instruments. His was the 'stuckness' one feels when out of options, let alone decent data.

It takes a leap of uncommon collective hysteria to believe these were three stooges. They were not, they were baffled by a situation that had gotten so far ahead of them, there was not sufficient time to unwind it, and try options.

So, back to square one: 2:09:30. A Flight computer commanding a dive, airspeed reads that were duff from either ICE or Turbulence, and a crew who were not "following" the bird as it lost its way.......

In the absence of explanation for the autoflight command to dive (Zipper), a postulate. The a/c malfunctioned, and the pilots were handed back an a/c that was in UPSET, without awareness of the level of trouble they were in.

Nothing of any sort by way of casting aspersions. This is unaddressed by BEA. How long will this remain the case?

At that time we were well established in a 15000ft/min descent, stable, no bank, a G meter would have probably indicated 1G.

Then we both agree that both elevators should show a full down deflection.
If it was not the case, it would be a major MAJOR concern ...

My personal answer would be that the 12 deg NU THS position influence for the 330 simulation had much more impact than the full ND elevators position.

This statement is correct, but it means absolutely nothing in the context of this discussion. The original problem with AF447, as far as we know, was UAS. Unreliable Air Speed. That is an instrumentation/indication anomaly. An incorrect instrument. In this case, the less reliable human was forced to deal with a computerized system unable to function as designed. In my opinion, the human is the only intelligent link in the chain, but the only link influenced by perceptions. The instruments and computers are not influenced by perceptions, but they are also unable to function in the absence of proper data.

Overall, I think your statement indicates an lack of awareness of the situation the pilots faced. In the interest of preventing further UAS instigated deaths, why don't we focus on the reasons the human perceptions were incorrect? In fact, they were operating/flying a machine that uses computed info for both flight indications and flight control. We HAVE to focus on the human to machine interface instead of defending the machine at all costs. Anything less is a disservice to the dead.

Lyman,
I can well understand your last post and I do share it.

Again with the making stuff up. Where do you come up with this, and do you find misdirection that enjoyable?

And airtren, could you be more specific with the "manufacturer problems", because outside of the pitot tubes, I don't see any.

Silent running re-engaged...

- actually no, but based on the apparent complete lack of understanding of aircraft performance and instrumentation. Don't tell me you cannot see it?

Incidentally, all are welcome to see 'mine' - just a simple click.:)

Able to raise the dead with a mere click, eh? Erm, misdirection? I like to think of it as focus. There are anomalies present (and ignored) since day one. Why not cease the misdirection toward the messenger, and address the problems? "Nothing to see here, merely a poor graphing result....."

Full of conclusions re: defense, yet an obvious sleight of mouse when confronted with exculpatory?

If one owns the "correct" conclusions, one is credible? If one merely proposes, or asks a question, "off the reservation," one is to be ignored?

Nice try, Lazarus. :D

Note from a total non-pilot!
 

Yep BOAC, it is apparent even to me, re who knows WTF they're talking about and who doesn't! (I've learned a tremendous amount about flying the big jets by simply following these threads, thanks to all.)

I think that, given the complete lack of solid truth about this accident, toady we have gotten closer to The Truth in both threads (whatever that may be). :8
Clearly, it is much more complicated than either incompetent pilots versus evil software. Those firmly on one side or the other are talking out their, uh, patooties.

[A side note, if anyone is interested. I'm getting mysterious private messages from unknown parties that question me about misrepresenting who I really am. I don't know what the problem is, but I've apparently touched some nerves out there. It's rather unsettling to get these creepy accusations. Maybe they mistake my intelligence for some sort of sekrit piloting knowledge. :yuk:]

Organfreak. It is the constant annoying paranoid PMs that I receive that have caused me to molt. It comes with the terror-tory....

This subrosa attempt at moderating is unsettling, but harmless. It speaks to the fear some have of probing questions.

CONFiture. Thank you, Sir.

Thanks for the reassurance, Lyman. Good to know.
I should have also mentioned that I also received some private thanx from more than one real pilot, for defending their posts. That tells me that I'm not (entirely) talking through my hat. And now, back to our regularly-scheduled tomfoolery. :ugh:

- yes, I am. Are they suggesting you do not, in fact, play the jazz Hammond organ?

There is a slight problem here on PPRune in that the content of Private Messages should be so, but I don't think there is any etiquette preventing you from telling us who is sending them? Perhaps then they could speak out here with their doubts rather than filling your inbox.

We might even be able to help with the 'unknown parties':)

Off the plot? Singing from different Hymnals? Who are these Shepherds of group think?

Coming back from the "dead" (I prefer resting ;) ) to point out that Lyman has received no PMs whatsoever from me for a considerable time. Organfreak has received none from me full stop.

Old Carthusian has oversimplified to the point of making an incorrect assertion, but that doesn't invalidate what he's saying. The problem is, so has Lyman - "Commanding a dive" is a completely incorrect description for what autoflight was doing, which was attempting to hold altitude in turbulent conditions.

Organfreak, let's be clear here - I'm not saying that the pilots were incompetent and I'm not saying the software or design is perfect. I'm saying that this incident appears to be caused by a systemic problem when it comes to training, as well as a significant safety blind spot when it comes to how AF was rostering flights once the UAS problem was known and highlighted. I get annoyed with the yoke/sidestick argument because it is a *distraction* - there is no quantitative evidence to suggest it would have made a difference, and what we have is a few posters (not all of whom are pilots) with an axe to grind trying to make the argument all about them and their prejudice.

TTex600, air data has been processed on its way to the gauges for as long as gauges have been around. Whether the processing was mechanical, electric analogue or digital, it has been done - the only way to provide a direct translation would be to blast the pilot in the face with air channeled from the outside. :) All the indications so far indicate that the standby (ISIS) panel was working for everything except speed (and the speed came back later in the sequence). You know you can see it fairly clearly from either seat. Even if the RHS lost all air data (airspeed and altitude), he'd still have had the attitude indicator and should have been able to read the standby. If he didn't feel confident with the information he had, the correct thing to do would have been to hand over control.

In reply to BOAC
 

BOAC done wrote:
Thanks you so much, sir, for your interest. (I don't expect much interplay from you-all, since I have no standing as a pilot.)

First, that's the oddest part: they haven't questioned my status as a jazz organ expert (if you can play good jazz organ at speed, you can keep a large jet flying too, I always say, ha ha), but rather, the weirdest series of msgs. was insisting that I was hiding my identity and it was time to reveal "who [I] really am." I also hesitated to post any of this publicly, but that user's nym is KBPsen. I looked at one or two of his/her posts, and saw that they also had clashed with Dozy, which was even more puzzling to me. I finally sent my real name, location, and website to this person, as I have nothing to hide, and those messages stopped.
Lately I had a mysterious note from a "The Barber" warning me that someone was impersonating me here(!!!) ME??? WHY? Creepy that he had my "official" email address rather than the one I use for this forum.
Sorry to others for this diversion. :\

@ Dozy
 

I do appreciate your attempt to clarify your views, and that gives me the opportunity to apologize if I was harsh with you. I don't disagree with any of the above, except your apparent view that the accident had only one cause. I can never keep my mouth shut when I see over-simplification (IMO). Clearly, there was a training problem, and horrible/non-existent CRM.

Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that it would not have helped in this situation. YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT! Do I get to take this point? :) I repeat an earlier utterance: As a SLF, I want my plane to be as foolproof as humanly possible! No-one is suggesting that, based on one accident, SSs should be ripped out and replaced with yokes, fer cryin' out loud.

No problem, accepted.

I was kind of hoping that the word "systemic" would imply that I think the causes are myriad in number as opposed to just one, which is indeed the case.

Let's be clear here - I'm saying that based on the evidence we can't know one way or the other and it's a purely speculative exercise. I think you'll find that it's the vocally pro-yoke guys who are insisting that it would have made all the difference.

You'd be surprised, and that's all I'll say.

As for wanting aircraft to be foolproof, they've come a long way over the last 50 years and it has proved to be a mixed blessing in a few ways, because as aircraft have become more reliable, a serious systems failure can become more of a psychological shock to the pilot when it does occur. The B757, for example, had an unprecedented safety record for a short to medium-haul narrowbody until the mid-90s, when two minor maintenance errors led to loss-of-control and a crash. This is why I'm inclined to focus on improvements in training, because ultimately even with improvements in automation and technical reliability the pilot is the last link in the chain and must be prepared.

'Unknown Parties' Green is OT
 

BOAC said:
OK, in further developments, the 'Barber' person who's been messaging me apparently does mean well towards me and his warning was, I guess, friendly. The person who put the weirdness up HIS nose (by email) turns out to be a former user here who went by the handle "airfoilmod." I found a brief discussion, in the archives, of his disappearance from here. Funnily enough, BOAC was involved in that discussion. I guess I'm not concerned any more about proving my bonafides: I have no bonafides! And I have said so! I guess THAT is what some people cannot wrap their minds around. :O

Dozy wrote:
I couldn't agree more! Have a cigar!
:}

I seem to recall that "airfoilmod"' disappeared' at his/her own request some time ago.

Funny old world. Brush it off. We are happy you are here. If you are 'hiding', you are not alone.:)

Dozy, the ISIS is just a mini EFIS, supplied with data from the same computers and symbol generators as everything else the pilots could see. Why do you keep mis-characterizing my postings?

I'm pretty sure that the data source for ISIS is selectable, just as the standby instruments were in the steam gauge days. You seem to be concerned that there is a computer involved - why? The computer is not generating the data for the EFIS, it is merely translating it for display.

In the case of my experience, the ADC on my side was failed, and the ISIS was taking it's information from the Captain's ADC, which was why I could read it.

Thanks, BOAC, you are a Mensch. Let me ride on your next flight.
I may be one of the few here who is NOT hiding! End of thread excursion.

Thank you, freaky.

Now, as the man says, back on track. While I can perhaps understand the change of 'Air Data', I cannot remember if, in all the SS stirring that seems to have taken place here, anyone clearly told us why the PF's 'ATT/HDG' was changed to 'FO on 3' where I think it stayed and what that would have done in the circumstances?

BOAC: I think ATPL & 'retired' will thwart most Nigerian bank scam artists. :)

CONF: I generally agree with most of what you post also (not everything of course, being a pilot :)). You can tell an actual 330 pilot (but as the old joke goes, you can't tell him much). I appreciate your general objective outlook & knowledge.

On the technical side, if the Flight Data block did not display a green or amber 0.XX 'G' indication (something less than 1 'G') and result in nose down movement as one would expect with a full nose down SS command, then at least as far as the simulation, overall pitch authority appears to be lacking at this point. If full nose down SS did not move the nose down, I would also make the assumption that neutral SS independent of pilot input would not have resulted in nose down? Can the gross effect on aero AOA be indirectly inferred from the lack of change in pitch and the same lack of change in the Flight Data displayed (or in the case of 1 'G' probably not displayed) inertial load factor?

I think objective discussions of Phase 3, both aircraft and human factors, & simulation overall are not unreasonable discussion items as references to both are contained in Interim #3 (somewhat extensive when it comes to Phase 3), although, as others, even with what was reported available I subjectively feel Phase 3 should never have been entered. Aircraft handling comparisons borne of 320 or other aircraft experience are interesting at least, possibly valid at best, but unsubstantiated to varying degrees.

(These internet discussions of accidents provide certain educational value and a dubious 'entertainment' experience that obviously does not in anyway substitute for an in-depth accident investigation being conducted by true experts, nor diminish the tragedy of the whole thing.)

There are posters (not you) who 'define' themselves into unassailable positions of no practical value. There's a lot to be learned here I feel, but certainly not as much as is to be learned from the actual investigation. Everyone here, bona fides or not, is I would think entitled to a spirited aviation discussion. Discriminating is the watch word.

(BTW, many standard training simulators (sim only feature) incorporate the capability to selectively artificially monitor, for example, flight data package AOA & beta or other selectable parameters where normally VOR DME 1 & 2 would be displayed on the ND. This can at times be educational also, at least to a 'sim-geek'.) :)


EDIT: For TTex, even with triple ADR failure and multiple electrical failures you will still have an ISIS.

Some 90 secs later the CAPT PFD was switched to ADR3 and ATT/HDG3 and the FO back on 2.

Is this some evidence of looking for some clues? Some trustworthy ones?

Must have been some ride.

Who or what did the switching? (No agenda here, just interested/learning.)

Chris N (who is who he says he is, and has not misrepresented his experience or qualifications – but has not previously mentioned a few years past experience also in a major aero engine company, because it is not particularly relevant or illuminating in this context.)

You got me here :confused:

What exactly is out of line with the aircraft and its expected standard of safety?

Is it a design fault that was missed in certification?

Is it a manufacturing fault that was missed in Quality Control?

Is it a wear out mode fault that was missed in maintenance?


no doubt there are one or two items in the pot of causal factors, but unless you delinate them it will sound like just another bash the product claim just because it sounds good..