Hi Bpalmer,
Nice description of IAS. CAS is IAS corrected for instrument and position /installation errors. |
CVR specifics
Hi, Everyone. Been reading these 11 threads from the beginning of this tragedy. Finally registered in order to ask what (hopefully) is not taken as a stupid question: is the CVR audio purely mic driven or are the C-chord, stall cricket and other audio alerts wired directly into the box? I doubt they are wired in, but if it were the case and the electronics were going haywire, it could explain why the crew never acknowledged the alarms (requiring speaker failure) while still existing on the CVR... Speaking of that, I do still wonder why the BEA neglected to include the "one hour sleep" reference and if there is more to the "privacy" excuses re CVR, legit or not.
|
BEA
If only the BEA would release the DCVRs in their entirety but they didn't having bowed to pressures by Unions.
I've put forward what indeed really happened in terms of human interaction on the AF447 flightdeck only to see my posts deleted by dark forces. It's difficult to fathom for for those who haven't lived in France to understand the strained relations the Unions have had with AF as well as overly-politicised appointements that are rewards for the party faithful. A much better read than the BEA's report is the Judicial Experts' report. A new panel has been selected for a 2nd Judicial Experts' report at Airbus' behest even though they were 98% happy with the 1st but now want to be 100% blameless with the 2nd report as it lays the foundation for the trial proper. No trial can go ahead before the 2nd Judicial Experts' report is completed but the road will be a long one and the Investigating Magistratre is set to retire at year's end which will again slow the wheels of justice. French trials for aviation accidents are endless. For example, a chopper crash in in 2004 with 5 victims will reach trial in Jan 2014 after 10 years! Crash de l'hélicoptère d'Héli Air: jugement le 30 janvier | Nice | monacomatin.com but wait then there are appeals and appeals... |
Originally Posted by Armchair
(Post 8170981)
... but if it were the case and the electronics were going haywire, it could explain why the crew never acknowledged the alarms (requiring speaker failure) ...
Speaking of that, I do still wonder why the BEA neglected to include the "one hour sleep" reference and if there is more to the "privacy" excuses re CVR, legit or not. @Winnerhofer - you do talk a lot of rubbish sometimes. First you claim the wife of the PF was present on the flight deck (for which there is no evidence), and now you're saying Airbus are aiming for a "blameless" report when there is no evidence to suggest that. What is suspect about the so-called "Judicial Experts" report is that it was performed at the behest of the SNPL. |
What is suspect about the so-called "Judicial Experts" report is that it was performed at the behest of the SNPL Those experts are independent and come from a pool of the judicial instances (and so .. are not "so-called" judicial expert :rolleyes: ) They are as independent as those of BEA Experts :ok: I hope this help :) |
Originally Posted by Gums
Me thinks that Cland and Gums are on the same page for most of the philosophy here.
Originally Posted by Gums
And as I have oft-repeated, the 'bus reversions modes are complicated and should be more straightforward.
Originally Posted by Gums
AoA is, indeed, a factor at mach approaching "critical" mach and such. The airfoils nowadays are much smoother than the old ones I flew.
Originally Posted by bubbers44
We could do it, why can't you?
Originally Posted by Peter H
While considering system updates, how about the generation of a message something like:
pitot redundancy lost, review UAS procedures Point with unreliable data is that they cannot be machine-recognized and no amount of computing power can help it. Have a look at Aeroperu accident; the kind of false alerts they got and tried to resolve in vain.
Originally Posted by Dozy Wannabe
In the case of AF447 the point is somewhat moot, as the PNF is supposed to monitor ECAM and action things accordingly.
Originally Posted by hikoushi
One way or another, he used the best judgment he could manage at the time, and it steered him wrong. "But for the grace of God", any of us could be there in his place.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
I am saying that, to maintain a safe and sensible flight profile at cruise altitude, you have to handle any large jet with kid gloves.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
Regular hand-flying practice reinforces the understanding that in level cruise-flight, regardless of turbulence or windshear, any pitch attitude more than 2 or 3 degrees above or below the norm is unsustainable unless you want to climb or descend.
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
this discussion clearly reads across to other types, many of which might be more of a handful at the beginning of a similar UAS event than the short-body A330 in Alternate 2B, with its advantage of retaining load-factor control in pitch
Originally Posted by awblain
While I'd agree that the A340 and A330 are - intentionally - very similar, this buffet appears to shake the cockpit much more than the cabin, yet is presumably excited by the air over the wings as the flow starts to change, rather than by the air over the forward fuselage.
|
Judicial Experts: Legal
@ Dozy : jcjeant is absolutely right.
Only the Juge d'Instruction has the power to demand un rapport des Experts Judiciares. The judge ordered this because she would need 3 months of A332 sim to understand the intricacies so the Experts Judiciares is an ham-fisted shortcut. What would really throw a spanner in the legal works is mounting pressure to get rid of the status of the Juge d'Instruction altogether and move an to an adversarial system by ditching the inquistorial one. This was done in Italy in 1988. Just for the record, over the last 30 years, the power of Juge d'Instruction has been eroded by endless reform so much so that it really be hightime to axe it. Its survival was further damaged by the Outtreau Affair which was led by an incompetent Juge d'Instruction. |
BOAC: I said nothing about the WoW - ground issue, only a passing comment on a clipping/filtering of the AoA signal, and was making a different point, when Dozy chose to take a point out of context and run with it. Since he didn't bother to read the post for comprehension, I thank you for pointing out that step toward Oozlum land.
Gretchenfrage's point on the culture and cultural assumptions behind aircraft and system design are a point well made. Look at the cultural assumption made in designing the A330, and the presupposition that no pilots will have the aircraft at 60 knots at altitude. (AoA signal clipped/filtered ... ) (LW_note in retrospect: Maybe I should have phrased that "henceAoA signal clipped/filtered) That pilots won't stall a passenger liner at 35,000 feet. This cultural assumption leads to how the testing and training are developed and funded. 228 dead ... no Koreans at the helm. Again, thanks for pointing out how far afield things can go when not correctly understood ... gee, I wonder if that isn't a metaphor for AF447 and the concept of pitch and power ... :p @ Winnerhofer, axe grinding noted. :cool: Did your ancestors fight in the Schlacht im Teutoburger Wald. :}:cool::8 @ Piltdown Man: Therefore the joint objective of all airlines should be to bring the teams skills of playing video games to the airline world. I'll will suggest that the winning Korean team had a very flat command gradient. And if this attribute of a successful team can taken on board so to speak, then they'll be in a position to win in flying operations. EDIT to add: Automation dependence and cockpit gradient problems are not unique to Korean operations, which is why I dragged AF447 into the conversation there about Asiana. I apologize if that wasn't clear. |
340 test was not part of official accident investigation and only confirmed that 330 and 340 have very similar approach to stall characteristics. Clandestino, Why was that unofficial confirmation of 340 similarity even necessary? What type of info would be derived from this consumption of jet fuel that would be useful with respect specifically to the 330....that couldn't be derived from a 330 test? (Apologies for the short post.) |
I fail to understand the bickering about insignificant details. The flight we are discussing was not a test flight and is not part of the investigation. The comité d'experts (two A330 captains, one B777 captain, one aeronautical engineer, and one maintenance expert, all five pilots) asked for a demonstration and hands-on experience of some flight characteristics that are common to the A330/A340 family of aircraft. They were happy with what they got, and described their observations with the usual caveats.
As to whether the buffet they experienced was more severe or less severe than that occurring during AF 447, one only has to compare the accelerations recorded near the center of gravity on the DFDR in the BEA report with those recorded in the demonstration flight. If Airbus carried out additional test flights in an area that hadn't been explored earlier, that would have been with a minimum flight crew wearing orange suits and parachutes, without judicial observers at the controls or even on board. |
I fail to understand the bickering about insignificant details. The intensity of the phenomenon is related to Mach on one hand and the deceleration rate (here 1 kt/sec). Since the values are different for flight AF447, it is likely that there was a significant and rapid decrease of the effects, which explains that the technical crew did not mention it and the cabin crew did not call the cockpit about it. I would still point to the same above phrase, questioned originally IIRC by Chris Scott. That decel rate used is also used for the manual stall QTGs in the FFS, from which, among other things, the buffet levels are tuned. The entry rate dependent variation would seem to be of some 'significance'....at least training-wise if different in a 330. One would think striving to avoid the training caveat: 'the same, except different' would not be unreasonable. Accuracy and fidelity for training or 'just' a 'gee-whiz' flight are not insignificant IMHO, especially if purported to apply over a broader range. Expert extrapolations with caveats, as valuable and as conducive to happiness as they may be, are still in this case, 340 to 330 extrapolations. In 45+ years of flying, I have never discounted any detail. |
Since the values are different for flight AF447, it is likely that there was a significant and rapid decrease of the effects |
OK, so my bad on the "Experts" - however my suspicions over objectivity remain, as the usual suspects when it comes to Airbus-bashing seem to consistently refer to the report in favour of the BEA material.
|
however my suspicions over objectivity remain, as the usual suspects when it comes to Airbus-bashing seem to consistently refer to the report in favour of the BEA material. I don't think you would include me as one of "the usual suspects"; at least I hope not! Thanks to HN39 I have just acquired a copy of the Experts Report, and although I have not had time to read it in detail I have seen enough to convince me at least that it is a careful and objective description and analysis of the events and at least as 'good' as the BEA report. |
No worries OG - perhaps my innate distrust of lawyers is somewhat overactive! :ok:
|
Why was that unofficial confirmation of 340 similarity even necessary? |
Judicial Experts' Role
It is worth remembering that the the Judicial (Forensic) Experts' opinions are not binding on the judge.
Leurs avis ne s'imposent pas aux juges qui restent libres. |
CVR
Dozy, I suppose I should have said "the flight directors going haywire" (which we all know should have been turned off/ignored. Anyway, someone should confirm if the alerts are/are not hard-wired into Cvr so as to eliminate a potentially major flaw/reason the crew did not acknowledge stall. There was "ozone" smell in cockpit - shame if that were speaker unit and therefore...
Yes, I know it's a long shot, BTW. |
No, it's a short one; it went no further than your foot. Alerts were picked up by CAM.
|
Originally Posted by Bpalmer
It should have quit based on what? Your opinion?
At the time the AP and A/THR did quit, a sane degradation to Direct Law would have provided a welcome alternative. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.