No, it most certainly is not a fighter. But we have gained ~2000 feet in pull out altitude from the initial cut at at the pull out. We haven't even hit the cornering speed. To avoid secondary stalls, we are likely to have to give some of that hard earned altitude back.

If fighter maneuvering theory helps, we should understand the theory. Far better to pull out at +100 feet than -100 feet. When your life is on the line, you may have to walk a delicate line between not making a fatal maneuvering error (secondary stall) and achieving maximum performance. All this while your heart is beating 10 miles per minute. Give yourself as much leeway as possible. In Alternate law, you govern the AOA. Don't mess it up!

Yep, but it will roll on you if you tear one off. Best bet is to leave them in. The fewer things you have to do during the critical pullout, and the fewer risks you have to take, the better.




http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...er_offline.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...ons/report.gif http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/sr...eply_small.gif

Hi

Interim #3, page 94

02:12:04 - 02:12:07 The airbrakes are controlled and deployed

02:12:07 PNF (left seat) said "No above all, don't extend"

@NeoFit:
 

Don't extend........The airbrakes (A.K.A. Flight spoiler or Speedbrake)
This is clearly visible in the FDR spoilertraces @ 02:12:04 - 02:12:07.

Another hint/clue.........

A33Zab

Better than that. In BEA IR #3, there is a picture of a recovered Flap rail that was EXTENDED. The "Extended" was in their caption, it is not my conjecture.

Hypothetically, since S/F trace is U/A, it cannot be ruled out that that is exactly how the Rudder was reinvigorated after RTLU instant at a/p loss.

A hint? RIGHT ROLL, the bias is apparent from the outset, and cannot be explained. He had extended the brakes, and stowed them, and the evidence is unclear that all were successfully stowed at deselect.

For that matter, it is not impossible that one or more spoilers was lost in the air.

Find the pic, and see what you think. F1 is possible, eithwr as a STALL recovery memory item, or as a desperate attempt to gain control, or lose a/s or Level out, or......

Lyman

Final BEA Report?
 

Anybody know when the final report from BEA will be issued?

Witness Marks
 

Lyman, on a scan through BEA interim report 3, I found no such picture-but I admit to being occasionally unobservant.:O There was a picture of a flap track in an earlier report, but that showed the trailing edge flaps to be retracted.

There was a tabulation of the final readings and configuration including this bit:
When aircraft get crumpled, the forces are very high, and adjacent parts bang together. This generally leaves copious marks of where components were located at the moment of impact. BEA would have known from the recovered wreckage almost immediately if a flap or slat was extended. It would have been published in IR3.

Nothing new on the BEA site. Publication of the report is planned for the first half of 2012.

Mach, hi. I looked again, dismayed, at IR #3 , and struck out also. It was group of three flap tracks, two retracted, and the third extended. Color pix, where?

BEA would not caption extended without an extension actual, so I think not wreck scramble. It is around. I swear it was #3. I'll find it.

I had read July, as per BEA, but can't remember exactly where I saw that. Let's see, April, May, June...............zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hi,

Confused ?
In the BEA report N°2 (english) it's indeed a photo ... page 21

http://i.imgur.com/Yyknc.jpg

and this caption:

Are you sure they are "hidden"?
AFAIK, the position of the other sidestick is less obvious than the position of the yoke (particularly with conjugued yokes), but not impossible to assess, as you seem to think it is.

Thx, jcjeant for explaining this misleading picture.

Well, NO....IF S/F where selected (in flight S/F lever #1, slats only! are extended to 16°) the RTLU traces would have shown +/- 31° to allow max. rudder deflection of 35° within 10s.
There is no sign of such RTLU movement so we can conclude FLAPS were FULL retracted and slats (only IF selected) never reached the 16° position.

No abnormalities at the spoiler traces before 02:13:40 (@ PRIM1/SEC1 selected OFF).
I admit these are servo positions only, but why should a panel separate if the lower gap is closed by the retracted! flaps.

Caption in report
 

Jcjeant, technically Lyman is correct, albeit not with respect to the ultimate question.

Your quoted language is from the text.

The actual caption to the picture in the English version of the report at your citation reads:

"Flap extension mechanism (or flap track) no. 3 in extended position."

Interim report no. 2 makes it quite clear that the two images of flap track no. 3, in both retracted and extended positions, are not of recovered wreckage but from an identical aircraft used to analyse marks left on recovered flap track fairing parts.

Another misrepresentation of items taken out of context.

No, just spectacularly amused. How come we can have sensible and rather short discussion when African pilots flying Boeing get disoriented splash it in the Mediterranean while AF447 disaster brings out myriad of hypotheses that would be charitable to call unrealistic?

Well, in defense of all the speculators.....this crash seems to be much more complicated and mysterious than that straightforward cockup. And, of course, the 'extra' FBW dimensions of this airplane and situation add many layers to speculate about! :)

Besides (I would argue as devil's advocate), It's a very long wait for a resolution, over three years, and I think ppl are tempted to furnish their own "resolutions." Inquiring minds want to know, or else just make s*** up! :rolleyes:

This crash raises all sorts of questions and fears about the long-simmering Airbus control issues/debate, and gives the multitudes all kinds of fodder to discuss that. Stop me if I am making sense.

But yeah...."flaps"??? C'mon, get real! :hmm:

Organfreak

A strong hint is furnished on the CVR, when PNF admonishes PF not to extend flaps. Later, there is an order to "Climb". One second later, we hear "NO, don't climb". "well, then, go down."

You question FLAPS? I wouldn't, but the man flying wanted to extend them, NO?

This is not speculation, this is an extension of CVR evidence. This kind of confusion develops on the Flight deck of a Legacy wide body in ETOPS?

This is not a third World cock up. This is a First World C/F. Boeing got nuthin to do with anything. This is NOT AB v. B. That is a sideshow.

cheers, bill

@ Lyman:
Well OK, YES, but at impact? Evidence does not support. As to the cause of the crash, I highly doubt that flaps had much to do with the end result. Am I being difficult? Sure, that's my hobby! :8

That's what I said, so I'm glad we agree on that much! But,

I don't agree. Numerous speculative (I admit) posts have convinced me that the design of this airplane may have contributed to the confusion, but, of course, not directly responsible for the accident. I think the arguments in favor of very obvious pulled-back yokes are very convincing. Hell, I don't fly, and even I would have intervened had I seen that! YMMV.

AB/B

When a pilot types, he is assumed to know the a/c. Is AB different? Yep. In approved and certificated ways? Yep, no room to argue. One knows his machine, or he does not. If anyone is confused due prior Boeing time, or vice versa, get a different job. It is ironic that the focus of some criticism is the system that has made the BUS so safe. Who would think to make ALTERNATE LAW a focus, especially re: high altitude upset? As I said before, my neighbor flew the 320 for years, for a Legacy carrier. In his thousands of hours he was out of NORMAL LAW not once. Fair?

The reason there is yet such passion re: 447 is because of the sheer number of shortcomings, poor decisions, bad design, etc. that killed these folks. We get complacent, and complacency leads to more complacency, then we forget.......

add. The lady in the RHS in COLGAN didn't push the yoke forward, and she had more time than her Captain. Don't be so sure "I would have intervened..."

then it happens...... I for one believe the attention is justified, and we let this go at great peril to all of us who fly....

Lyman, I hate to say this, but you are flaunting your confusion and lack of knowledge.
You are confusing speedbrakes and flaps. One goes up, one goes down on the A330.
Time for you to re-read FCOM flight controls again.

PM was telling PF not to extend the speed brakes and PF complied after briefly extending the speedbrakes. If all the emotional sparks had not been flying at that point, one of them might have realized, "Hey! We put out the boards and nothing happened. Maybe we are very slow."

Mach.

Perhaps. However, and it may be merely linguistic, but FLAPS are extended, Spoilers are Deployed. The first bit of FLAP is an extension of the chord of the wing, and adds lift, further FLAP extension creates more drag than lift. Anything on top of the wing spoils lift, as you know.

Could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time.....

Sure, but here we had a "perfect storm" where the pilots were apparently not trained (properly). Then, and only then, did these design characteristics come into play. Surely that's a reasonable argument to have.

In the case of your A320 friend, I think that is exactly WHY there had been prior complacency about high-altitude training. It wasn't considered a likely issue, until now. Now there's a mad scramble to address this, and high time, too. What if he HAD found himself in a similar situation? Would he have survived? That can't be known, and I for one don't choose to gamble when the houses get tiny.

How'm I doin', guys? :hmm:

Organfreak

John is reluctant to discuss 447. He does say the pilots were screwed from the outset, and for many reasons, not the least of which is lack of training, especially re: UAS and high altitude SOPS.

Mach. Who's to say PF did NOT conclude "Hmm.... Spoilers were no help, perhaps FLAP?" The word EXTEND suggests that, at least to me... If, as is possible, all three ended up being worried re: Ospeed, there were discussions re: FLAPS, and prolly GEAR.

In a descent as weird as this one, how is it all are so sure what happened?

Can there be another explanation except that they believed Overspeed?

Never gamble, Organfreak, and try always to keep the houses tiny. Big houses are a problem.

Lymanaroonie:
Perhaps due to my lack of advanced technical knowledge, but I have never been able to get my mind around the idea that they thought they were in OS.
Why not? Because of the highly unusual deck angle. How in the world could anyone suspect OS when tipped back like that???????????????????????????? I ask you.

I rest my cases and will now quit while I'm behind.

Machinbird;

This may help the discussion regarding flap position.

The first photograph is from IR2 (IIRC) but copied/rendered in B&W and rotated for easier comparison with the second image which is from the initial wreckage photographs, also copied, cropped and enhanced for clarity.

I think this is conclusive evidence that the flaps were in the up/retracted position. The rotating flap actuator faces forward (retracted) in the accident photograph but faces rearward (extended) in the IR photograph.

For further clarity, a flap-track schematic showing the rotator in both postions is provided below.

PJ2

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-xTPn...xTPnhHP-XL.jpg


http://batcave1.smugmug.com/photos/i...q9sgjB8-XL.jpg



http://www.smugmug.com/photos/i-qT6X...qT6X7Hh-XL.jpg

Where in Heaven's name did you retrieve that accident image? That is one I saw that I believed to be in IR3. If not, it should have been.

Mechanically, I am more comfortable than aerodynamically, so I would ask for clarification, as the wreck image seems to show a fully extended flap actuator, not a retracted one. The dog is fully exposed aftward, whereas if stowed, it would be sheltered forward, and along the the top of the carriage. Also, I believe though the images and schematic are oriented correctly, they show opposite side wing attachment. Aren't the Rotators outboard?

Also, isn't the carriage extended aft first, before the rotator deflects the flap surface downward? So the actuator could be stowed, and the FLAP still extended FLAP1?

Thx, Captain.

It is rather obvious to me that the rotating actuator controls the fore and aft position of the carriage and hence the flap angle.

Thanks for the clear images PJ2

Got it. I see. Are there two other images of the FLAP rails, one that is captioned "EXTENDED"? (From the wreck situs)?

Cheers, mm43.

Lyman;

The original image was provided by the BEA just after the discovery of the wreckage. There were seven other images provided at the time. I don't think that there are/were other images of flap tracks from the wreckage site.

(Edit: I took a look at the two photos of the tracks in IR2, one showing the flap rotational actuator in the extended position and the lower image showing it in the retracted position. The track itself is very beefy, (about six feet long in total, IIRC) and hangs down a long way thus the need for the aerodynamic "canoes". The first photo in the above post was actually from the left wing, but in the rotation to conform to the photo of the wreckage, it appears to be "correctly" oriented. It makes no difference as longitudinal orientation is here unaffected by lateral orientation. This is Flap Track 2 from the R.Wing. Flap Track 1 is differently structured and mounted inboard of the gear near the fuselage/wing join).

PJ2



http://batcave1.smugmug.com/photos/i...h65dtfr-XL.jpg

It is very kind of you to post that additional image, sir. Now I must locate the image with the "extended" caption.

In IR2, the canoes were used as a proxy to suss position at impact, that is why I had assumed the images I saw were from the IR3, the actual equiment is not likely to have remained floating.

Also from this image, I see no evidence that Gear was extended, There is no deflection evident other than mostly vertical whilst stowed.

Thank you again, Captain.

Lyman,

In the BEA IR#2, go to page 20. There you will see a photo of the flap extension #3 in the extended position.

Go to page 21. There you will see a flap extension #3 in the retracted position.

Both photos are from an identical A-330 aircraft, not AF447.

The photo of flap extension from the floor of the sea posted by PJ2 is from a series of photos taken by the BEA from the wreckage, but is not in BEA IR#3. Only 4 photos are shown in the report, an engine, a wing section, a fuselage section and the nose landing gear.

Now, if you go to PJ2's post containing the flap extension drawings, you will see how the mechanism works. As the flap actuator rotates clockwise, the flap is pushed rearward and is pulled downward by the carriage as it travels down the angled track. Conversely, when the actuator is rotated counterclockwise, the flap is pulled forward and is pushed upward as it moves up the angled track to its nesting position. IMO, the photo of AF447's flap is in the retracted position.

Hope this clears up your confusion. But Lyman, I have a question: Why is this flap or spoiler position important at all? This large swept wing jet was descending at a pitch up of 16.3º, an AoA of at least 35º or more and a vertical speed equal to the horizontal speed of ~124 miles per hour. So what exactly would flaps extended or spoiler extended do in this situation?

TD

Reading the FCOMs when one cannot tell the subtle difference between speedbrakes and flaps is total waste of time.

How in the world could anyone not abort the takeoff when it's obvious left ASI is not working then after liftoff couple autopilot and autothrottle to the single malfunctioning ASI and stall the airliner on initial climb?

How in the world could anyone hit the ground below airport elevation?

How in the world could anyone turn ninety degrees off required heading during night descent into long, narrow valley?

How in the world could anyone not understand that using the rudder to roll the airliner is reserved strictly for total loss of lateral control and not for wake encounter?

How in the world could anyone pull when faced with stall warning?

How in the world could anyone push the aeroplane into sea during go-around?

Simple.

All it takes to provoke the Grim reaper is to stop thinking and acting as a pilot.

Hi TD

From the Captain's re-entry to the flight deck til impact, we are told there were no displays on the panel, for either pilot. That means all the flight data available had to be guesswork. The a/c meandered about a "g"of a fairly consistent "1", so deck angle, A/S, and control actuated excursions were all a matter of guess, and what we are shown to have been very little discussion amongst the three.

You claim a NU of 16.3? How luxurious! As I have said many times, that is from the DFDR, and the pilots were "out the LOOP". My picture of this flight Path from the outset of Manual Control is that the crew were outside looking in, they were victims of circumstances that prevented their recovery, having caused the Upset in the first place.

The captain had to have noticed the Deck angle, he was walking, not sitting. Whilst seated, at one g, and nothing visible outside, the a/c could have been inverted, for all the pilots could suss. One G is one G. The popular image of goofy pilots at war one with the others is a painstakingly created construct. Deployed Spoilers, (they were) Extended FLAP (we don't KNOW), and Throttle settings seem outrageous. We were not there.

Just as the G traces for PERPIGNAN have not been released, damning evidence of a/c behaviour wil not be seen, as BEA have morphed their mission statement into releasing "ONLY DATA THAT MAY SERVE TO PREVENT FUTURE ACCIDENT".

That's nice, but consider how much unilateral maneuvering that allows re: evidence and its disclosure. Uncommanded Climb? Let's say we knew PF, and he seemed a competent sort of pilot.

Instead of keeping an open mind, the masses have claimed he screwed the poodle from the git, pulling like a maniac, instead of doing what WE all knew was the "RIGHT" thing. His inability to understand (seemingly) what the PNF was saying was construed as incompetence, rather than a genuine take on a misbehaving a/c. He did not know he was climbing? More like he did not know WHY? Again, with the ergo, lack of proper belting, and the shaking deck, how was he to suss what his stick was doing, w/o a speed tape, a FD, etc? Now this too is damning, but also Human.

I don't know this, but neither do you. When I see all the data, to include all the discussion, (what else is there, that all three had?) I'll give it up.

Clandestino. FLAPS are extended and then retracted. Also SLATS. Spoilers are DEPLOYED, then STOWED. Words have meaning.

"Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true" seems to be the philosophy.

Word games or feigned ignorance does not alter the fact that no flaps were extended. Neither were slats.

Non surtout ne ne (les) sors pas

Hamburt Spinkleman

"Word games or feigned ignorance does not alter the fact that no flaps were extended. Neither were slats."


Hmm......At Impact? You don't even know that for certain. Is that from chicken guts? Ouija? Not extended then retracted between LOC and Impact?

Who's making bold statements?

If such selections were made, it meant the pilots were desperate, and it is very important to paint them not as desperate, but stupid. Desperate draws attention to their lack of instrumentation, or displays, and that might be construed as a platform problem? Only stupid pilots get wet? Nothing re: Flaps slats or spoilers can be demonstrated conclusively, probably ever. That means certainly that not disclosing these things brings no harm. Only to the pilots, and once they are demonstrated to be fools, to the majority, we can move on?

Slats retracted, sir. Well, that is... the servos are shut. One's missing, but who will know?

I have come to realize that is it pointless to use facts as they will just be ignored, twisted or otherwise mangled to suit whatever agenda it is you are pursuing.

Nevertheless, flaps were retracted at time of impact. That is know from impact marks on flap track fairing debris. That is a fact. Slats were retracted at time of impact. That is known from DFDR recorded data, as is the flap position. That is a fact.

Had flaps or slats been extended and then retracted in flight it would have been recorded on the DFDR and caused the RTLU to return to low-speed position. That did not happen. That is a fact.