Lyman,

At 02:12:44 the pitch is about level, the V/S is 15000 fpm, the stall warning is operating, and the captain says "(!) it's impossible".

If the nose is pointing up, the airplane should be going up, doesn't it? Hence the verbal confusion about going up or down. Are they talking of attitude or vertical speed?

HazelNuts39

Both, I would say. What was Airspeed, I doubt Captain would claim "impossible" with only two cues?

If airspeed was <150knots, would he not command "Nose Down"? Where were the elevators at this time?

FTM, where was THS? But we know that, did he look? MAXNU? He might well be expressing chagrin at the THS' (apparent) lack of response "Why so 'stuck'....."

llagonne66
Indeed ...
But .. for observe what ?
What were their powers?
What phases of the investigation do they have observed or potentially participate ?
Representative of French families have asked for an observer .. this was refused

Lyman,

Airspeed (indicated) had been around 60 kts, momentarily reached 150 kts at 02:12: 43. Elevators were at -15 degrees (NU).

llagonne66

Dependent on which of the two circles you claim as residence, Where then is the data? The complete data?

There is no record of most of the record of the CVR, transcript or audio form.

Your question is not relevant, it has no benefit other than rhetoric. My question is a simple one, who has the record, is it available?

Can you answer that (honest) question?

My claim is not of conspiracy whatsoever. Someone has not released the data.

Prove me wrong? Until mine is answered, yours is merely an implication, unprovable.....

merci le cirque

Lyman,
As HazelNuts39 has pointed out the time listed above, the altitude was 20,028 ft. At 02:13:32, less than one minute later, the altitude was 10,092 ft.

It would seem to me that had the Captain recognized the situation at 02:12:44, that indeed they were fully stalled and falling fast, it was marginal the airplane could be saved applying significant nose down and holding it for a significant period of time. Less than a minute later, it became impossible. Debating the THS position, the elevator position, nose up, nose down, Side-stick visible, side-stick not visible, side-stick forward, side-stick back, it was too late. The Captain's words "it's impossible" prophetically applied to a possible recovery although I don't think that was what he was referring to at the time.

lyman, jcjeant
 

So much have been said over and over again that I can just go back almost two years ago.

http://www.pprune.org/6426258-post568.html

I have not changed my mind since that post.
Point taken : I should not have reacted to your unending ramblings about the BEA hiding the truth :O.
So please go on and on and on and on ... I'll watch from the shadows ;)

I well remember your post. Like you, I have confidence that what has been provided by the BEA is and was relevant to the conduct of the flight. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/icon14.gif

Turbine D,

The captain recognized at 02:12:44 that they were fully stalled, and one minute later when the pitch attitude was 15 degrees NU he said only "no no no don't climb" ???

EDIT: If you recognize you are stalled there's only one thing to do: recover. At 20,000 ft you don't ask yourselves whether recovery is still possible.

At the first time, the VS was 15000. In about a minute, they fell only 10000.

That means the VS reduced substantially. Very substantially. What happened that was "Impossible" that drastically reduced their Vertical descent? Greatly increased forward velocity?

The lack of evidence, evidence that surely exists, would, I believe , provide answers. Answers that are invaluable to the safety of flight.

I do not believe in conspiracies, especially here. The lack of evidence is a fact. There is a demonstrable refusal to disclose the information. I could not care less the reasons for witholding it.

It is witheld, end of. That has f-all to do with sinister planning to commit a crime. (The legal definition of "criminal conspiracy").

Some imaginations are at high speed. One can accept the BEA report in the absence of full disclosure, or reject it. And anywhere in beween.

I do not trust it.

"The absence of FULL DISCLOSURE, is a species of FRAUD"

SUPREME COURT.....

Nothing drastic. Vertical speed reduced gradually. Air density?

If VS reduced at a constant rate, would it not be ~5000 fpm at 10000 feet?

Averaging 10000fpm for that portion of vertical descent?

Would that have elicited some conversation in the cockpit?

He never realized what is going on in the first place. He had leaft flightdeck in order, nothing indicating this crossing of the ICTZ would be extra-ordinary and returned after first officers managed to stall the (allegedly, legendarily) unstallable.

Just a guess but it might be a good one. Or not. Unlike NTSB that goes to great length to make a coherent picture of pilot's performance since first lessons by, BEA's info on pilots is remarkably scarce.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Description befitting a paperback novel but bearing no resemblance to anything recorded on CVR or DFDR. Unlike Stearman, all A330 currently in use are fitted with closed cockpit, therefore somewhat isolating the pilots from the elements. Airstream at high alpha and low speed would definitively sound different than it's usual in cruise but it takes quite a stretch of imagination to believe crew would recognize airstream as chaotic solely by listening to it. Especially as we're discussing the crews that didn't find warning computer shouting STALLSTALLSTALLSTALLSTALL worthy of comment.

TT shows they were not inexperienced. All the other crews involved also had zero experience in manual handling of A330 in alternate law at high latitude yet none even dented their steeds. Experienced pilot also: stalled their aeroplanes fatally, lost controls, hit the ground they didn't know was there, ran out of fuel &c.

That is very particular conclusion based on nothing but PPRuNe misinformation that stick positions are ueber-relevant.

Desperate -yes. Attempting to figure out anything and failing -yes. INOP or problematic controls - not at all. They worked as designed and obliged pilot's inputs dutifully into self-destruction.

ND very briefly with rapid reversal back to NU as nose went down.

If so he was dead wrong, soon to be just dead.

It is possible, it happens every day but seldom results in catastrophe.

What happened when stick went forward?

There was no loss of control before the climb. At least not in this local universe. Continuity of the controls and that aeroplane reacted to elevator movement up to splashdown is established beyond doubt.

True but irrelevant. Do classic controls always produce the same aeroplane response for the same yoke displacement or it depends on weight, C.G., speed, altitude? Proper way to fly passenger transport aeroplane is by attitude indicator, not by feel. Who checks THS position on classics after take-off anyway? When required attitude and performance is achieved, residual trim force is trimmed out but notice taken of trim position after trimming - naaaaaaay.

Let the fact that unstalled aeroplanes don't fall from the sky at RoD in excess of 10 kilofeet per minute with nose held up high do not detract us from pursuing this interesting line of thought.

if indeed was so, their failing at that is unsurprising because controls worked all the time. They just could control themselves and eventually lost the control of the aeroplane.

By Jove, if this litany of yours ever becomes self-fulfilling prophecy by affecting someone so feebly-minded to believe it, you will have nothing to be proud about!

It is not believable to you.

The investigation.

Power of objecting to investigation methods and results, which was not exercised. I must admit that this power is nothing compared to some posters' here special powers of pulling stunningly unrealistic hypotheses out of thin air.

If French families signed The Convention on International Civil Aviation, there would be no reason to deny them the representative. Do you have a slightest idea what was the purpose and the legal status of the BEA investigation or are you just expressing amazement that the real world's arrangement is somewhat at odds with your notion of how it ought to be?

Are you accusing BEA of falsifying the CVR transcript?

BEA has original, anyone interested has transcript. If you have internet, you can download it too.

Data is released. too bad it was not to your liking. It just wasn't its purpose to satisfy anyone, it had to do something with improving the flight safety.

Clandestino

The entire transcript? Post it for us?

Many thanks

Lyman,
Don't know if you took Physics in High School or not, but there was a lesson some schools offered: If you drop a feather in a vacuum tube, it reaches the bottom of the tube at the same time as a marble (a tie). Add some atmosphere (air), the marble wins the race. Add even more atmosphere, the marble wins by a much bigger margin.

Now think about two feathers attached to a hay stalk falling flat in ever increasing atmosphere (more air). It falls ever slower during descent, as the air gets thicker creating more resistance, proving several important aspects of physics. Same is true of an A-330 falling nearly flat from 38,000 feet to 20,082 feet to 10,092 feet and on down.
It is not and that is why it is not ~5000 fpm at 10,000 feet.
Ever denser air is a known fact.
Is this part of the imagined "missing CVR record?"
Only if it is imagined but portrayed as being the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

TurbineD

Air density is a known fact, so is 15000 fpm. I think it is possible Bonin is trying to "sell" overspeed to Captain. With flat Pitch and an increase to 15k in the descent, Bonin may be showing the Captain, "Look, Nose Down, greatly enhanced loss of altitude." He then "PULLS", and the VS decreases. Remember, speeds are not to be trusted, nor is STALL.... It is only us who know they read true.

These are desperate moments, the crew will try anything, and having never experienced a STALL in a large swept wing jet, who could fault their "ingenuity"?

I am trying to make a case for more understanding of this accident, not less.

You say air density, but that implies a passive crew...I think they were innovating, what else could they do?

If you are satisfied that the investigator is satisfied, fine. Throughout, the BEA leave avenues unsearched, and leave open (apparently) room for doubt.

They expect lack of interest to help them prove their case, and they get it.

Another approach could be: "This is everything we have, here are the possibilities." "here, there is great disagreement, shouting, so, this...."

The unending theme of this unsatisfactory conclusion is "Why"? Absent the fullness of data, that remains the height of injustice. The least fair of all settlements is Blame....And here, an opportunity to learn, squandered.

Yes exactly
Those families (or representative) are one of the parties interested in the investigation process like are AF Airbus and others that can be added
They are also partie of the trial to come like AF Airbus and others that can be added ..
All but the representative of families have the right to be observers
Something unfair in The Convention on International Civil Aviation
If the representative of the families had the right to sign the convention .. be sure he will
Seems it's denied to them ...
And for the release of documents to public by BEA:
The FDR listing was never released (so far)

Not all, just the representatives of the ICAO member states that are considered to have interest in investigation such as countries where airframe, engines or systems manufacturers are located or if their citizens perished in the catastrophe.

What do you think we are basing our discussion of aeroplane's attitude altitude, control sticks and control surfaces positions on?


Siiiiigh.... of course it is denied, they are not sovereign state interested in in having international air transport. Take E. Cochran's advice and take your problem to United Nations. They are the only ones that can do something about it.

Anything unclear about it?

On the graphics released by the BEA in the final report .. not on the FDR listing
So .. who is the representative of the ICAO for the french citizens who perished in this accident ?

The NTSB is actually the outlier there. European agencies such as the AAIB and BEA tend to only reference crew performance as a whole. The NTSB has courted controversy in the past with individual crew performance assessments.

Care to give us some examples?

The latter was the source data for the former. As has been asked before - are you asserting that the data has been manipulated, and on what grounds?

To the best of my knowledge, no accident investigation has released raw DFDR data in its entirety.

Any representation of raw data in any other form other than the source numbers is manipulation unless the original scale is maintained and molestation of the timeline is avoided.

I don't think the scale and timeline have been altered to the best of my knowledge. Unfortunately the PDF conversion has rendered the graphs in a relatively low resolution, but they're still readable.

What I was getting at (as I'm sure you're aware) was whether certain posters believe that the data was deliberately altered to say something other than what was on the DFDR, and what reason they have for thinking that may be the case.

For the record, I think the data is genuine.

Data, data - you say genuine, I say véritable
 

Every DFDR/FDR data output set that I have ever laid eyes upon contains data points that do not fit the overall picture. Some are spurious and unavoidable due to monitoring and data collection system limitations and are rejected unless they fit a pattern under investigation. Other odd bits are known transducer noise anomalies. In a highly digital aircraft such as the Airbus or most modern Boeings, most of the raw transducer anomalies are filtered before they get to any exterior data bus. The DFDR, by virtue of its design, recording limitations, and things like the time slice paradox, does a bit of filtering itself.

Now, take what is left, and try to paint a perfectly accurate picture of exactly what was happening and when - it can't be done, however a reasonably accurate representation of the various parameters is what we have to work with, and in most cases, this is enough for forensic analysis.

On to the public release - the mere act of taking those fiddled numbers and placing them on a chart is once again a manipulation of the raw data. Subtle, and mostly innocuous, but the movement away from fidelity is incontrovertible and obvious to those who have seen the raw traces.

Dozy

To me, It is not necessary to accuse anyone of anything. The report and its genesis are self explanatory. Without the fullness of the Data, in its entirety, the report is misleading beginning on its face page. Purposefully? I cannot say, but again that does not matter either. Everything in view is "interpreted", and left to the imagination.

What's left is what matters, corroboratory, exculpatory, and further room for doubt. What is not included would frame nicely the part that is published, right wrong or indifferent.

It is a "managed" document, apparently satisfactory for most, and dissatisfying for some....

Motive? Who gives a rats behind, the damage is done. "Intent" is loaded with nuance. Nuance has no business in a report that is intended to be a complete and factual record....

Were these gents actually that silent? Speaking prophetically and sparingly to a conclusion of their own incompetence? They had several minutes to bring to bear the sum of their 10000 hours.

It is the height of injustice to not allow them to be heard in the arena of fairness, by experts who can use discretion and somber reflection, toward a result of added wisdom.

They perished fighting a kind of flying that is rightfully held in awe, and fear, by sane and experienced transport pilots.

Their legacy deserves a hearing, by others than those who have thus far prevented one.

I do not wish to hear it. I wish for some neutral and wise party to judge and report what happened. BEA does not qualify in that regard.


That is why Data is necessary, to remove doubt.

Or the instruments, as per design.

The numbers aren't "fiddled". Filtered, maybe - but no more so than is normal for this kind of process and certainly not due to direct human intervention.

In which case every accident report ever published is, by your standards, "misleading" - as they are based on data sets no more precise than those supplied here and do not include a full dump of the FDR data as a matter of course.

Same as for most accident reports. For example, the Spanish report on the 1977 Tenerife disaster was very unsatisfactory to the Dutch investigators, yet the veracity of that report is rarely, if ever, questioned.

So why are you not demanding the same for other accidents?

Why does the BEA not qualify? Neutrality is in their charter!

Maybe not all the FDR but at least a big part (the most relevant for the accident)
Find here the Sharm El Sheik accident report (Egyptian report) with FDR listing (from pages 96 to 305!)
Download Report Charm pdf - upload, email & send large files up to 1GB for free!
And in France also .. FDR listings are sometime released to the public ...
Download Listing FDF France jpg - upload, email & send large files up to 1GB for free!

Last time I tried to download those it tried to put a trojan on my computer. Hopefully I'll have more luck this time...

I note that the second (French) document dates to 1990. Given that there were far fewer methods at that time to render such data graphically and in an easily-readable format, could it not be that the graphical method used by the BEA now is simply a tool of convenience?

ical
 

Whether you accept it or no, the BEA fail neutrality and wisdom both, by definition, and at Law.

They are an arm of the FRENCH government, which has an enormous stake in the outcome. There are economic and political repercussions.

BEA themselves would demur as to wisdom, for wisdom bears judgment, and BEA may not judge.

My opinion.

Precisely, my friend.

Both words describe an alteration, or better, interpretation if you will, of the raw numbers. Perhaps one has a negative connotation that should be avoided?

Lyman,
It seems to me you are taking the case where the basic facts of the cause of this accident are well understood and attempting to make them less understood with your unsubstantiated theories, imagination and innuendoes.
Below is the released data, CVR and FDR from the BEA. That's all there is. In the absence of the Captain, the PF & the PNF stalled the airplane, never figured out they were stalled and upon the return of the Captain, he couldn't unravel what had taken place and what was happening in time to make a difference.

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...nexe.01.en.pdf

http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...nexe.02.en.pdf
I don't agree. It has certainly focused attention on high altitude, high speed manual flying as well as what to do and not do should UAS suddenly happen. So far, there has not been a repeat so there has been learning going on, one would think, not all has been squandered.

What stake would that be? The A330 is already a success in financial terms and the pan-European Airbus consortium is going toe-to-toe with Boeing in the global airliner market. How would the outcome of this investigation change that?

I ask again, are you insinuating the BEA's complicity in a cover-up?

No more or less than any other commercial aviation disaster.

They have no legal say - however as with every other accident investigation bureau they are required to make a judgement call on the technical and human factors surrounding the accident.

It's not an alteration of the numbers (as they came out of the DFDR), it is simply a graphical rendering*.

* - Which in turn allows them to present the same amount of data that would take thousands of pages rendered numerically into less than ten pages graphically.

No kidding? I do know how to fly, I do know how to fly on instruments, and I am aware of how modern flight control systems have response rates. I used to have to check them for delivery, according to a spec.
Why are you asking me? The "position of THS" beacme a topic of discussion in re AF 447, and some of the folks in this discussion feel that the THS ended up impeding the recovery. I am not in that camp.

You comment to me there is not on point, as I was referring to response rates, a feature which will be found in any aircraft that has hydraulic/electro mechanisms in the linkages between pilot input and flight control surface movement. As I understand it from those folks who fly the A330, the response rates are just fine in normal flying. No surprise, I imagine the AB engineers and test pilots did a lot of work together to get that "just right" before deliveries started ...
Thanks for that, but I already know that.

Cheers.

LW_50, I suspect that while Clandestino's point is referring to your post he is - as usual - addressing the gallery and not you specifically. As far as I can tell you're singing from the same hymn sheet, and I wouldn't take it personally.

For good or for ill, he does tend to go off like a hand-grenade!

Dozy you make some good points re: the report.

It is what it is. I have high expectations, and am irritated at the "sole source" aspect of the system as expressed currently. It has the flavor of secrecy, something that is repellent in a free society.

It does not feel or appear right that evidence can go unseen by all but one group. I would favor an Ombudsman to represent neutrality. Certainly at the level of International Aero Commerce....

Whether or not there was bias, the system is set up to create the appearance of prejudice, at least to me.

It's been a great ride, thank you for all the energetic point counterpoint. I do not know about you but I have learned alot, and you have been a source of some of that new knowledge, so thanks....

Cheers.

How so? The only reason the BEA has been the primary investigatory agency with little outside influence is because no other agency has asked to join in at that level. Don't forget that in the case of the Mt. St. Odile accident (probably mindful of the press assertions regarding AF296) the BEA invited an NTSB team in to check their work.

And yet the NTSB has been the sole investigatory authority for US-made airframes flown by US-based airlines for decades without similar aspersions being cast - why the double standard?

There's a scar in the earth of the Ermenonville forest just north of Paris that serves as a constant reminder to the French of the folly of sweeping airliner design problems under the carpet. To this day it still pushes bits of metal and bone to the surface. It's a lesson that only needs to be taught once.

It seems to me that the BEA believes he is a journalist
The graphic is their press article and their source is the FDR listing
You can not force a journalist to give his source .. because it is protected by law :}

Dozy: I understand and see something similar. What I fell needs an answer is taking a comment I make somewhat out of context.

@jcj:

Not quite - the data is verbatim from the DFDR, it's just rendered differently - i.e. the formatting has changed but the data has not. Ironically, you could make a case that it's like what passes for "journalism" these days (i.e. slapping a byline on a pre-written press release and leaving it unchanged), but that's different. :ok:

@LW_50:

Sure, and he's misrepresented me once or twice in the heat of the moment - he's usually happy to take it back though, and I'd much rather have him inside the tent than outside! ;)

Dozy

You create the double standard by defining it, and you haven't let me agree. There is no difference in the lack of suitability NTSB/BEA to perform their mission.

The environment for both is populated by people whose job descriptions are written by other people, similarly situated....

The conflict is glaringly obvious, to deny it, is, well, denial....

These folks are BUDS. It is not fair to demand intellectul isolation of the investigators from their confreres. It goes against human nature, and in and of itself creates the conflict.

Assuming people can easily transform themselves into Solomon, is patently ridicilous, and childish.

"Ombudsman"......eliminating the potential, and hence reality, of conflicts.

"Peer".....QED

I disagree. Separating one's personal relationship from the working relationship is Professionalism 101, and in the case of aviation it's even more important to do so. Making sure that your colleagues do the right thing, and in turn allowing them to do the same for you should not be subject to whether you like each other, because in a heavily interdependent organisation getting it wrong lets the team down.

It could be argued that the BEA, NTSB and AAIB fill that role for their regulatory counterparts (i.e. DGAC, FAA and UK CAA) - it's why they were made independent in the first place. Prior to this, political and personal factors allowed standards to slip and it always ended in tears.

One major limitation to this system is that the investigatory agencies only come into play after something has gone wrong - Air France's troubled recent history was well-known amongst the piloting fraternity, but it took something drastic to allow the BEA to investigate. Another limitation is that the regulators cannot be compelled to act on the recommendations of the investigators, but that's for another time.