Hi,

If you read the synthesis .. it show that the pilots were incompetents (no training for the AF447 case despite multiple same events in the past)
And also cause no recommendations in the past by the BEA about those events and no a sensed word by DGAC about same events
AF - DGAC - BEA are to put in the same bag and Airbus is not better (they always stated before 2010 that stall training was not needed)

Maybe you are dreaming ?

PILOT ERROR: Air France Jet Plunged Into Ocean Because Pilots Screwed Up

I just found this today. I have no idea if it will help or not.

I think you guys can brain storm all you want over the fine points why the computer and or indications did what they did. However the bottom line is either the pilots had mucked up data for whatever reasons and for that reason could not fly the aircraft out of the situation or the freaking system would not let fly the profile what was needed to escape the bad situation.

This is not a problem for non FBW aircraft. I say again we are so far ahead of the game we have lapped ourselves and are now behind again.

I will give the pilots the benefit of the doubt on their flying (not managing) skills. I have to ask again, do you want to be able to fly an aircraft or do you want to fly a system? Please do not give me a lame excuse about how fine the system is, just answer the question.

I think that was a misconception widely held by the industry as a whole, and not specific to Airbus in particular. It certainly looks like AF are going to have to pull their socks up though...

[EDIT : @before landing checl list - I think that's a terribly poorly-summarised article which doesn't even bother to translate what's being said into layman's terms - the whole thing has been reduced to an inaccurate soundbite. ]

Hi,

Found on a french site .. the synthesis of the press meeting (in french)

"Sebaska wrote at #2233 (I don't have the quote facility for some reason)

RWA

Quote: If we are encouraged to believe that the THS reacted to 'noseup inputs' by pitching up, why did it not in turn respond to 'nosedown inputs' by pitching down?

It was explained to you already, yet you choose to ignore that and champion your pet theory of "cover up". :ugh:

"

Where was this explained already, Sebaska? I have looked and I can't see any answer to RWA's point. I think it's a valid one.

Without any new evidence, the crash becomes more an exercise in politics, and authority.

Perhaps the bottom line is how much authority (control of evidence) should any entity possess which has a commercial interest in the outcome of their investigation?

DOZY: As a sw boffin, do you expect much of what is needed for an understanding has a particular timeframe?

I think the window around a/p loss, since this is the point at which the vulnerability was highest? If the PILOTS are as described, what is the point in a retrospect of STALL?

How did this START?

Hi,

Well ... the aircraft involved in the crash is an Airbus property of AF and piloted by AF pilots so far I know

Hi,

Some comments about extracts of the press meeting:

Those type of instruments are already available ... but were not installed on the AF447

The analyse of the pilot behaviour is not so difficult .. when you know that the BEA itself show in his synthesis the "lack of proper training" of the AF447 pilots


First at all ... in France the press is free and secondly .. the press articles were based on leaks from the BEA
Before take care of the press .. it's better for BEA to give a look at their personnel !

Hi,

Full report available: (so far in french only)
http://media.webcastor.fr/web/bea/f-cp090601e3.pdf

jcjeant, take care when translating:

14h56: Il y a besoin de réaliser une étude sur la présence d'une évaluation d'incidence accessible

2:56 p.m.: There is a need to conduct a study on the presence of an indication of angle of attack (not attitude)

:rolleyes:

About the group: question is why the stall alarm was ignored, IMO.

About the leaks: from the BEA ? Sure of that ? Of from interested parties (company, manufacturer, government...) who had access before the general public ?
Do you search for facts, reality, answers ?

Synthesis Note

Nothing new. A "qui" typo on the english version that should have been caught by the proof readers, a bit sloppy from an organization that is detail focussed, surely a simple spell check would catch it?

Safety Recommendations

Some odd grammer but readable. All looks good addressing the areas of serious concern that we have read in the forum threads. To that extent it is all consistent.
However it still does answer why the pilot inputs of generally nose up which appear to contradict the PFD. Why input stick back when pitch +16 and below Vs with TOGA thrust and N1 near 100%. Perhaps we will never know as we can't see exactly what the flight instruments showed. This appears to be addressed in the remarkable suggestion in the safety recommendations. Is this formally recommending cameras on the flight deck?

Well, from a software perspective, what you'd need to do is load up a test rig made up of the exact hardware installed on that aircraft with the exact software installed (down to point releases), apply the DFDR data to that test rig's inputs to see what the software and hardware does - then repeat this test anything up to hundreds or thousands of times to see if any anomalies appear. I suspect this would not be a small or inexpensive undertaking, but it would be do-able.

It's looking very much like an inappropriate response to the situation as it developed, starting with the nose-up inputs shortly after FMS disconnect, then progressing through selection of TOGA and the later aggressive and maintained nose-up inputs all the way down, and it wouldn't be the first time it has happened (as I've always said, I think this was another Birgenair-type situation).

Way back when I started commenting on these threads earlier in the year I said that unreliable instrument readings in the wee hours at night, in IMC with unsettled weather hundreds of miles from land was a nightmare situation for any pilot to confront, and that any findings of mishandling on the part of the pilots *must* take this factor into account, and this is why I got very agitated when people said that by saying software failure was unlikely to be a cause I was blaming the pilots.

Lack of training appears to be a significant issue here, along with poor CRM practice when it comes to rest periods. It would appear that the ITCZ is a known problem area when it comes to aviation, and many pilots on the thread have expressed the opinion that they would not have left the two F/Os in charge until safely out the other side.

Colganair 3407 was the wake up call that the airline industry had bred complacency in two distinct areas, one of which was the effect of fatigue and the other was poor recognition of stall conditions and application of the correct response to those conditions - but that investigation was still ongoing when AF447 crashed and the final NTSB report not released until February 2010, 8 months after AF447.

In short I think AF447 was a "perfect storm" of the problems within aviation. Birgenair and Aeroperu had shown what could happen if the pitot-static system was compromised, but both of those incidents happened in the climb phase. Not much thought was given to what would happen if something similar happened at cruise altitude, with the attendant limits on possible escape procedures. Airlines had been training pilots to respond to approach to stall and the warnings generated without getting into what would happen if you were to actually stall, how to recognise it and - crucially - how to get out of it, because it requires going against the human instinct to cram on power and pull up when the correct response is actually to get the nose down and hold it there until the speed comes back and the wings are flying again. AF also deserve to come in for criticism for failing to expedite the replacement of pitot tubes which were known to have problems.

@jcjeant - if you're honestly suggesting that airlines were training their Airbus pilots on approach to stall only and the rest of their crews were getting full stall recognition and escape training, I think you need to get some perspective.

BEA´s Safety Recommendations
 

Quote:

---

Training for manual airplane handling

---

As B4-LandingChkList , bubbers44 and others pointed several posts away: More stick time…
The question is who is going to pay for that? And… How is that redefinition of training going to look like?
Bubbers44 said gliding isn´t cheap; well prolly companies should pay that kind of training. Much more cheaper than a hull loss anyway.


Well Airbus… Begin asap with it methinks...

No conspiracy theory. The situation was mishandled by the crew leading to the aircraft departing its flight envelope.

Now the investigation will focus on the human factors involved and attempt to resolve why they did what they did.

On a very quick skim-read of the French text, two key questions are:

1. Why did it start to go wrong?

2. Why was it not corrected?

As to 1: notwithstanding the difficult conditions I am afraid it does rather look like pilot error in the sense of being a combination of ill-discipline in the cockpit and bad training. If I have understood correctly, the PF and PNF had received no training in how to deal with inconsistent IAS inputs at high altitude, or in manual flight at high altitude.

However, as to 2: IMHO the full CVR transcript shows that the systems were in large part to blame. The passage from 2:12'37 to 2:12'44 is tragic and shocking in equal measure. At the start of this timeframe (i) the PF was (for once) pushing forwards (ii) the aeroplane was in a stall but (iii) the stall warning was still silent. My poor translation is that the PNF tells the PF to "descend! descend! descend!" The PF says "That's what I am doing." The Captain intercedes "No, you're climbing". The PF says "I'm climbing [meaning - "you think I'm climbing?"], okay, I'll go down".

At precisely this point, his nose-down inputs stimulated enough speed to trigger the stall warning. The captain's next remark is "This isn't possible." His bewilderment is unsurprising.

Thus the PF's correct nose-down inputs were punished by a stall warning; his wrong nose-up inputs were rewarded by the stall warning ceasing.

The instruments thus played a cruel, Pavlovian trick on the pilots which IMHO goes a consdirable distance towards exonerating them.

I don't think this is sufficiently emphasised in the report.

Copilot´s training
 

Who can please shed some light on the copilot´s deficient training the BEA report states.

"The copilots had received no high altitude tr aining for the "Unreliable IAS" procedure and manual air craft handling".

I find it hard to believe this. Isn´t this training absolute standard in any simulator training of any serious airline?
Am I missing anything?

Thanks

The 3rd interim report says that none of the two copilots had received a proper instruction/training for
- manual A/C piloting at high altitude (see PF's large amplitude inputs in roll and pitch above 35 000 ft)(I am also very disturbed by this !)
- UAS procedure at high altitude (one of them had received a training for UAS at low altitude, where the pitch was higher, in the order of 10°)
The CVR also shows that there was no clear attribution of the roles by the CDB when he left the cockpit, and latter, that the cooperation between the two copilots was not very good

AF447 Interim Report In English -

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol....let2011.en.pdf

Hmmm. Claiming the a/c behaved as directed after this accident was under way is misleading, if not a direct fraud. No one to this very day knows what to expect after LOC ending in Stall, yet that is the focus of the BEA recommendations? Confusion on the flight deck? Christ, does any pilot take that as a serious critique of these guys given the circumstances?

The induction of this LOC is virtually ignored. The Public is to accept the outrageous nonchalance of this outfit, and be satisfied with a conclusion and blame prior to the finish of the investigation?

I suppose we could say that the release is intended for public and lay consumption, hence the simplistic opinion and utter lack of evidence.

But that leaves the Public with but one source of critical knowledge, a source with a financial and commercial interest in the outcome. I cannot abide "International" accords, when they are merely political, but a proper and objective source of multidisciplinary critique might be an alternative.

Who Guards the Guardians?

Hyperveloce

yes. This fact screams complacency, and negligence. If accurate, then any criticism of the pilots stops well short of the actual responsibles.

bear