RR, this is BEA's answer to your question:

"In the absence of a specific message expressing detection of unreliable speed by the systems, the crew was unable to identify any logical link between the symptoms perceived and these ECAM messages. The impression of an accumulation of failures created as a result probably did not incite the crew to link the anomaly with a particular procedure, in this case the “Vol avec IAS douteuse” procedure."

That takes us to 2:10:22, with PF's "protective Nose Up", and half way to STALL.

Without Artificial Horizon, his confusion re: Pitch, airspeed, and Vs plus his preoccupation with a very real roll, and an imaginary overspeed, and STALL is creeping up quite close.

on surprises
 

Lyman,

Surprised til the end...

Simple: UAS must be informed immediately. Before any System processing.

(Why not by a dedicated "processor", a retrofit?)

Hi Mac

All things considered, it would be safer to take all probes off line and extinguish IAS displays, followed by a message on the PFD. "airspeed INOP".

It wouldn't matter whether it was real or not, if real, the message on the ECAM is [/B]UAS / SET PITCH / MONITOR POWER[/B] if it is not real,

TEST/ONLY.... Three's your startle "drill" for the trip!!

You are correct - Thank you for the head up.

was ?
will is more accurate as the RED OEB is still applicable.
But why bother with a RED OEB and a rewriting of the FCPC algorithms after all as the occurence is behind us.
I think I could take that OEB out of my QRH and you should talk to the QF72 crew and also to the pax who made that mess :

http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/11/75/17/84/af447_10.png


I will suggest you should stop burying yourself, just because your ego prevents you to acknowledge how your comment is uninformed :

Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
Poor training. As I've stated more than once on this topic, my training was no better.
Apples to Oranges. I've never had a UAS ordeal, so we just don't know. I should have included the qualifier that my Airbus training was no better. My other jet training was superb.

But to answer your question, I'll take a guess that most of the 36 other crews were flying the 330 as their second/third/fourth etc, transport category swept wing jet. Maybe their Bus training was inadequate, may not. But they likely had previous experience to fall back on either way. If I read the BEA report correctly, the two guys at the controls for AF447 were essentially Airbus only.

To address your other claim, I'm not arguing that the Airbus design is "dangerous by design". Your confusing me with some of the other multitude of people you've argued with these last six years.

I'll take a guess that most of the 36 other crews were flying the 330 as their second/third/fourth etc, transport category swept wing jet. Maybe their Bus training was inadequate, may not. But they likely had previous experience to fall back on either way. If I read the BEA report correctly, the two guys at the controls for AF447 were essentially Airbus only.


Exactly, the other 36 crews would not have pulled up to 15 degrees for no reason. They knew how to fly an airplane with no airspeed. These two didn't.

You been very explicit, but you do not deliver us all your thoughts ..
What you said ( if I read between the lines .. "a grand art" ) is that the person in charge had not to be there because it is incapable of knowing what is happening or know what to do ...
If it was a truck driver who has had his place .. it would be understandable that he does not understand what happend when the autopilot is going off
This is not the case .. this pilot ( driver ?) is an employee of Air France .. selected by Air France and trained in his trade and followed by assessments made ​​by Air France and under the supervision of regulators rules
Why Air France or the regulators in the first place let fly an A330 by a truck driver ?
That's not funny for the people at the rear ... when they hear a hostess ask if there is pilot in the cabin ...

- have I missed something or are you starting a wild hare running?

What do you assume was displayed on the PFD????
The local TV channel? :E

All that nice coloured lines and bars and vectors aside, what do you assume does the blue and brown indicate?

Time to time as the malfunctions activate the direct law, manual trimming is necessary.
Also, some exercices as manual back up and lost of elevators put manual trimming as the main source for pitch control.
Trimming remains natural for a pilot, and also a source of satisfaction in the way to handle manual flying. It is almost disturbing the first time you experience the Bus in manual flight, and that possibility to trim is taken away from you.

But to answer your question, I think that for every recurrent we should be given a 15 minutes period in direct law with no FD and practice some basic exercices. I hope this will come.

Lyman:
Per BOAC and henra: whence comes this assertion? I thought we put that to bed a while back, when I wandered off the reservation on the 'tumbling gyros' jag and was reeled back in by some kind contributors here.
The Rolling Stones will supplement the sound track with an excerpt from the unreleased album, Exile From Tolouse Street:

"You got me ro-oh-oh-lin, call me the Tumblin' Gyyyy-ros!"

Tex
This is where "the industry" may need to speak up. Maybe only the pilot's Associations are in a position to do this. (Quite possibly I am off the reservation on this as well. Reel me in, if need be, Tex).

CONF iture
Thank you for that concrete and informative reply. :ok::D

Lyman:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyman
Without Artificial Horizon, his confusion re:

What do I base my assumption on? Eyewitness testimony.

What do you base yours on?

Reading thousands of comments here I don,t recall one saying all attitude indicator were inop, even one. VSI wasn't, inop either.

I don't either bub, but that isn't what we're talking about...

EG: it was the 'group' that decided he hadn't lost his vario, though he said it wasn't working. We decided it was working fine, but pegged.

Ballsy, eh?

OK - where does anyone say "we have no ADI"?

Bet they don't.

Bet you're making it up.

I agree ... in the CVR .. it's no stance like "we have no ADI"
Nevertheless ... it's a captain stance:
2 h 12 min 23,0
The wings to flat
horizon the standby
horizon
Why tell to use the "Standby Horizon" instrument ... if you have a ADI ( certainly more accurate and easy to read ? )
Or captain believe the ADI's are no more reliable (by comparing the 3 instruments reading ?)

Maybe a reference to the fact that they're all showing the same thing?

I realise this is my own reading, but I have to say I think it would be unusual for the captain to repeatedly point out and make reference to devices that weren't working without saying they weren't working. Especially in the context directly following an order to arrest roll oscillation.

Jcjeant...


Quote:
OK - where does anyone say "we have no ADI"?


Hi dozy. Proof? Unlike your request re : stick visibility, which was discredited, I have proof the possibility exists, sufficient to claim something like....

"We have no indications"'. "Standby horizon, wings level"

It was the actual text of the Pilot, not a surmise from me? In the presence of actual proof that the panel was goofed, you claim the ADI was fine, simply because it wasn't singled out? What unmitigated, or ignorant, gall.

Ever the optimist, I will wager this: when the rest of the CVR is known, I'll bet dollars to doughnuts we will grasp what is not known about many things.

Are we on?

Was Captain saying the Standby should be followed? Or that he considered it goof? Oh, "my vario is not working...". Captain: "OK....." (SIC)...

The text creates questions, to claim otherwise is outrageous....

"Horizon was fine, of course, it must have been....". Excuse Me?

Here you're conflating two utterances in the CVR transcript which are over 20 seconds apart. The PF's reference to displays is at 02:12:01. The Captain's statement, which in the English version reads:

"The wings to flat horizon the standby horizon"

does not occur until 02:12:23.

Why would the Captain order his crew to arrest roll oscillation ("wings to flat") and make immediate reference to the horizons if the horizons weren't working?

Proof? It looks more like a subjective reading of the CVR transcript to fit your own prejudice.

No, I'm saying that at no point are the ADIs referred to as not working, and in fact it makes more sense to suggest that they were working given the Captain's orders. I'm not saying I'm right, but a dispassionate reading of the transcript is more in favour of the ADIs working than not.

Dozy,

Why would the Captain order his crew to arrest roll oscillation ("wings to flat") and make immediate reference to the horizons if the horizons weren't working?"

"Why would the Captain order his crew to arrest roll oscillation ("wings to flat") and make immediate reference to the horizon(s) if the horizon(s) weren't working?

He did not refer to the plural, did he? Yet you would have us believe he did? That is simply dishonest.

On this,

"No, I'm saying that at no point are the ADIs referred to as not working, and in fact it makes more sense to suggest that they were working given the Captain's orders. I'm not saying I'm right, but a dispassionate reading of the transcript is more in favour of the ADIs working than not."

No more questions......you have said well what I struggled to say...

Who wants favour? Who wants the truth?