Dozy,
IIRC my " new Britannia Captain" had come to us from flying Caravelles. Perhaps HE needed to be reminded that turbines' reaction to a demand for an increase of power needs some time, " thinking time ?", even if there is a propeller fitted to the front ( He did not stay for long.)

Even as trainees we had been taught to use a powered approach on Oxfords and Ansons, to be ready for a low overshoot.

( Later, at the gliding Centre to the east of Toulouse it was possible to do a low overshoot in a glider - the main strip was along a ridge, so one could turn over the side of the ridge and gained height or landed in a field at the bottom.)

Back to the subject at hand after this - promise, but:

Well, Caravelles were famous for their excellent gliding characteristics, Britannias - not so much.

I bet that was a case of serious brown trousers the first time and brilliant fun thereafter. :ok:

Regarding stall warning and stall, the differences are indeed not that big.

In clean configuration, level flight at low altitude with idle thrust, Jaques Rosay would have decelerated at about 1.2 to 1.3 kt/sec.

AF447 decelerated at about 1.7 to 1.8 kt/sec which is somewhat faster, but OTOH the margin between stall warning and stall is greater.

The point that Rosay is making, that selecting TOGA in response to stall warning doesn't keep you out of a stall, applies equally to AF447.

Indeed - which is why one of the big factors to come out of the investigation was that the industry's approach to recurrent training around stall warnings at the time - i.e. stall avoidance only - was insufficient. But we've already covered this aspect several times over, have we not? ;)

As said previously, go into Politics dozy, you're dishonest enough to succeed.

Yes, we have indeed.

Didn't the changes in the industry's approach to recurrent training around stall warnings come out of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid?

EDIT: Rosay's paper is dated January 2011, F-GZCP's wreckage was found in April 2011.

It could have been part of it, I'm not sure. I was thinking more of the joint Boeing-Airbus effort leading up to the event mentioned in this article:

Stall training still constrained by limits of knowledge

According to the FSF's website page here:
Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid | Flight Safety Foundation

Revision 2 of the Airplane Upset Recovery Training Aid was published in November 2008.

@CONF iture - I stated that I felt some posters were less concerned with safety issues regarding AF447 than they were dredging up AF296, then you replied in the affirmative. If that was a mis-statement on your part then that's fine, but I used both our words verbatim - how is that dishonest?

Dishonest to the point to not admit you're the very one to bring up AF296 on this thread.
Stop mentioning a topic if you don't want to be confronted on it.

Politics, Policy &//Or The Law
 

Quote:
"As said previously, go into Politics dozy, you're dishonest enough to succeed."

Or, go to law school.

Show me just where in the hell I've been dishonest. Bet you can't.

Dozy #324 ish,

That gliding centre was unusual in that it WAS possible to do a low over-shoot in a glider. The other six or more that I had used were on flattish airfields. I had seen others using that technique, so my Instructor did not have a scared pupil - and he spoke in Franglais to me. ( Their Met man and I used the plotting symbols for a restricted conversation ... A common language of sorts ?)

The Report on AF296 stated that " TOGA is applied at 12.45.35. Four seconds later, the aircraft begins striking the tree tops."

Being now 15 degrees NU and at 122 kts... While the engines operated to specification, they did not have very long to have their effect on the aircraft.

THAT is why I would like to count aloud the number of seconds to get power from Flight Idle to TOGA ( On a sim, of course !)

LT

Pitot heat
 

I'm sure this must have been covered in one of the threads but I can't find the reference.

I would have thought that in those conditions the pitot heat would have been on as standard. Has that been commented on?

If you review the first two or three AF447 threads, you'll find considerable discussion of pitot tubes, and pitot heat, and the phenomenon the flight encountered.

If you go to the first page of this thread, john tullamarine provides a nice template for using the search function to look into those threads with any term you insert. If you use pitot heat, I think you'll get to see how the discussion went.

You can try

pitot af447 site:http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/
or
pitot heat af447 site:http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/

and see how many posts commenting on the system there are. Then pick and choose from those.

Pitot heat
 

Many thanks, Lonewolf

BBC : Air France 447 crash pilots not emergency-trained, says coroner
 

The next few pages are merged from an R&N thread discussing a Coronial finding in respect of the mishap.


Pilots at the controls of a jet that plunged into the Atlantic Ocean killing 228 people were not adequately trained for the emergency, a coroner has said.

Michael Oakley, North Yorkshire coroner, was speaking at the inquest into the deaths of two British men in the Air France jet disaster, in 2009.

Arthur Coakley, 61, of Whitby and Neil Warrier, 48, from London, both died.

The crash, during a Brazil-to-France flight, was blamed on technical failure and pilot errors.

Recording a narrative verdict on the men, who both died from multiple injuries, Mr Oakley said there had been a series of "systematic failures".

BBC News - Air France crash pilots not emergency-trained, says coroner

And that's how things get misunderstood. The crash hasn't been "blamed" on anything, because the court case hasn't even started yet. The crash investigators' report was a finding of fact, nothing more.

I think you will find a Coronor's court is a court.

Correct, this is a legal finding. The report later says:

""The air disaster highlights serious public concern of whether pilots are overly dependent on technology and are not retaining the skills required to properly fly complex commercial aircraft.""

That is actually not a bad summary of what was being said on the AF447 thread here.

Whatever the findings are, the underlying cause will be the poor and distant management at Air France and the culture of arrogance and buck-passing which pervades French companies.

Yes, but this was a UK-based inquest into the deaths of two British citizens who died in the crash, not the proceedings in France where I suspect the feathers will really fly.

Anyway, all I was saying was that the article seems to be implying that the investigators' report apportioned responsibility, which it did not.