Appendices
|
"the lack of understanding of what the aircraft was doing"
Hi,
MountainBear: :confused: What I do not comprehend is why they did not comprehend. A good machine is transparent. You ALWAYS control it. Through a constant comprehension. :ok: ??? |
First off congratulations to the French institutions for their endeavours in retrieving the evidence and the subsequent analysis. Irrespective of sidesticks and yokes, aoa indicators , huds or other technical options, the fate of this aircraft was a consequence of the actions of 3 human beings over a 4 minute interval in their otherwise peaceful lives. No machine can be perfect so its an equation of competence, training, knowledge and readiness.
|
a tremendous amount of basic flying skills are no longer required to be taught.
.. while the automatics are working ... which is why my old slide rule still sits in the bottom drawer (not that I would like to have to demonstrate my residual competence on the beast at a moment's notice). Through a constant comprehension. .. and apprehension ... No machine can be perfect so its an equation of competence, training, knowledge and readiness. .. not a bad summation. Clearly there has to be a point beyond which diminishing returns makes additional training investment a moot point and not rationally justifiable .. however, establishing just where that point might reside depends a lot on what coloured glasses the viewer is using. I have noted, in a variety of test circumstances, that a characteristic of the experienced pilot is a tenacious devotion to achieving the goal. This admirable trait is defeated if we don't give him/her a fighting last ditch chance to save the day when all the gee-whizz stuff takes a holiday. |
Thanks IT, got the full CVR appendix and others.
As many here expected, a combination of training, CRM, and the control law reversions/displays all played a role in the tragedy. I shall cut the crew a bit of slack. Not a helluva lot, but I have to look at their experience and previous training. And then there's the belief by a few that the "system" will take care of them. I shall not cut the FBW mechanization a single atom of slack, nor the associated lack of clear displays to the crew as to what they had available ( so-called protections) nor basic steering guidance for the crew that had thousands of hours using the AP and not actually flying the jet. Don't mean to be harsh, but it's what I feel. This will be a landmark accident report in terms of recommendations and findings and..... My prayers are that we shall see improved training, improved CRM and maybe some changes in the reversion sequences of the FBW systems when the air data sensors fail. |
Well done, Gums. (We're all bz reading...)
:ooh: |
I read the final report and much of what was discussed in these pages is there.
My only nit is that there is no discussion that the crew seems not to have been aware of or concerned about altitude until the 10,000s digit dropped off the altitude display, i.e. went from 5 digits to 4: 2 h 13 min 31,7 PF (*) au niveau cent -- FL 100 2 h 14 min 07,3 PNF je cabre PF ben il faudrait on est à quatre mille pieds PNF I'm pitching up PF Well we need to we are at four thousand feet and while recovery from 4000' would have been unlikely even then they did not think of stall. Earlier on we have PF: 2 h 11 min 58,2 Je… j’ai, le problème 2 h 11 min 58,6 c’est que j’ai plus de vario là who feels he has lost VS indication. Perhaps if the VS pointer was red, thick and flashing it may have clued in the crew in time. |
Changes made by Air France - post accident
5.1.2 Modifications to reference systems
|
I keep reading the "• Appendix 1 CVR Transcript" because I think it does speak volumes about the mind set of the crew. I still think that humans factors were the main cause of this crash. There is a lot of paper work that contributes to diverge the attention of the crew from flying the airplane. CRM was no where to be found that night. How do you get a Cessna pilots license without knowing what Stall means? Who cares about over speed when altitude keeps dropping? 25,000 feet (actually 28,000) were casually lost at level 100 and keeping the wings level was more important? ...? :ugh:
Anyways, it is over for now until the next one. |
I still think that humans factors were the main cause of this crash. |
Something in the CVR transcript I have not seen til now... Very late in the text.
2:13:53.0. Page 31 CVR transcript (English) Captain: "So wait...AP off". (sound of selector button....) Que? |
RR DNB:
UAS IMMEDIATE DETECTION Quote: it is impossible. It is POSSIBLE AND EASY! (Simple engineering solution)* (*) Will brief on that important issue in Man machine interface Thread IMO the most sensible solution: http://i474.photobucket.com/albums/r...ab999/Vsyn.jpg To not understand - the AIRBII Man machine - and in particulair the displays, Ecam messages etc. for NON Airbus pilots is excusable.....but NOT TO Airbus pilots. 3.2 Causes of the Accident: ------ Thus, the accident resulted from the following succession of events:
|
question
I`m not apilot by far.But I`ve read a few a.i. reports, so i think i know a bit more than the common man on the street.
sp pls somebod answer my question.Would`nt a simple spirit level (water gauge) in the cp have heled ? There a so many technical revolutions today ,flying to the stars.why is it not possible to have a display in the cp showing the attitude of the ac from outside (head up-tail down) with a big blinking red arrow under the fuselage pointing downward,combined with an alarm and a voice,saying "correct your attitude" which can`t be cancelled until this has been done ? |
Something in the CVR transcript I have not seen til now... Very late in the text. 2:13:53.0. Page 31 CVR transcript (English) Captain: "So wait...AP off". (sound of selector button....) Que? I suppose the captain moved the AP selector to OFF (useless command IMHO) |
Quote:
Is 60 kt really too low cut-out for widebody?
Originally Posted by ECAM_Actions
(Post 7279812)
It would seem not slow enough. :ugh
Why 60kt? To read a 10:1 turndown in airspeed in range 30-300 needs a 100:1 turndown on the pressure sensor - so just double the lower value to make sure we can measure it? |
Originally Posted by ECAM Actions
Besides - the FD bars on the AF jet were commanding a CLIMB,
|
Originally Posted by page93
The turbulence was modelled by introducing gusts so that the simulated parameters were copied from the parameters recorded.
Originally Posted by page 188
In the specific case of alternate 2B law, some coefficients used in the longitudinal flight control law become speed-independent and are set for the maximum speed for the aeroplane configuration (330 kt in clean configuration).
Originally Posted by sensor validation
I'm sure someone can post a calculated trace of actual speed through the air, taking into account vertical and ground speed and estimated wind.
http://i.imgur.com/ibRLy.gif?1 |
When was this lecture?
It certainly pre-dates AF447 accident but is creepily prescient. |
Exactly. It's from 1997. Had the same stuff in 1988 in the RAF. Gave the same stuff in 1992.
This is why airlines should run their own training schools, ab initio, not rely on self-financed pilots getting trained by anyone they think will pass them at the most affordable price. |
Question to all those who fly for a living or have done so:
Would you have, as Captain, taken a rest break right before traversing the ITCZ? A question was raised in the final report about the timing of the Captain's break but was sort of brushed aside. Perhaps there would have been a different outcome had the Captain stayed awhile longer in the cockpit but that's easy enough to state in hindsight. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:56. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.