Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air France 447 - On topic only!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by elaw View Post
    2) I love the point around 4:07 where the narrative says "...it was very difficult for the captain to make a diagnosis.". Okay kiddies: airspeed varying from 0 to around 80 knots, aircraft "wallowing" for lack of a better term, and a very large constant negative vertical speed. How could you interpret those instrument indications other than to say the a/c is stalled? Not a difficult diagnosis at all IMHO.
    You forgot to add the nose-up attitude and the 57 cases of the stall warning sounding, not with a fuzzy horn, but clearly shouting "Stall, stall!!!"

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • True!

      One thing that surprises me a little about the video is that they didn't add actual audio (probably not from the CVR or anything but simulated) of the warnings that were taking place in the cockpit. For me at least it would have provided a more realistic depiction of what the pilots were experiencing.
      Be alert! America needs more lerts.

      Eric Law

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

        By now I will just say that, while the flight director displayed some pull-up cues, it also displayed push-down cues, and there is no correlation between the flight director's and the pilot's commands. I don't think that the pilot was in any way misled by the flight director (that by the way he should have turned off by procedure), particularly in the initial crazy take-offish pull up and during the initial response to the stall warning.

        So pilots my ask "and what is it doing now?", but I will keep asking "and what the hell where they doing?". I have not the slightest idea.
        Agreed. After seeing this, it's clearly not a FD issue. I think the PF was just focused on roll and not paying attention to pitch. I also think he had no idea how to fly the plane in this scenario. It's just pure improv and no CRM and a very weak skill for hand flying. I also think his "what's it doing now" level of understanding convinced him that the stall warnings were false. I think we've long ago solved this mystery.

        But... what's that display in the upper right... a green line for angle of airflow and a red line for flight path angle... and a little airplane to make everything instantly understandable...

        Why THE F**K is this not displayed on every glass-cockpit aircraft during stall regime AoA? How many lives could this very simple, BRILLIANT, software fix have saved?

        Sometimes these solutions are so easy it hurts.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
          Agreed. After seeing this, it's clearly not a FD issue.
          And now we know why it showed some nose-up cues: Someone selected VERT SPEED and +6000 fpm first and +1400fpm later.

          I think the PF was just focused on roll and not paying attention to pitch. I also think he had no idea how to fly the plane in this scenario.
          Not enough for me. Note that they were not "erratic". They all the time tried to hold the nose 10° up and the wings level.
          Not knowing how to fly the airplane is one thing. Flying like that is another.

          I mean, if I had paused the spacetime at the instant of the AP/AT disconnect, removed the pilots from the cockpit, and put you instead, you would have not crashed like this. I think that you would not have crashed at all, but if you did, it would have been in a different way. Not by pulling up 1.5Gs, 15deg nose-up, 7000fpm and when the plane says (because it actually said so) "Stall!", pull up again and keep pulling up when the plane keeps shouting Stall, stall!!!

          It's really beyond my comprehension. It's like if this pilot had never flown a small Cessna or Piper.

          I am very sorry to say this, and I am the latest to blame the pilot, but the blame appointment here goes for:
          1- The pilot, for his lack of skill and, even more, for his lack of interest to understand how a plane flies.
          2- Air france, for not training the pilot and, even more, for hiring and keeping him.
          3- The flight instructor and flight examiner that conspired to give this pilot a PPL licence. His primary flight instructor takes the golden medal of blame.

          But... what's that display in the upper right... a green line for angle of airflow and a red line for flight path angle... and a little airplane to make everything instantly understandable...

          Why THE F**K is this not displayed on every glass-cockpit aircraft during stall regime AoA? How many lives could this very simple, BRILLIANT, software fix have saved?

          Sometimes these solutions are so easy it hurts.
          Agree. I have been a long time (but low power) advocate for AoA indicators in the cockpits for all type of planes.

          But I have to confess... the level of stick-and-rudder skills displayed here (and that level would be basement -15) makes me seriously doubt that even such an AoA indicator would have helped, for you must to understand what AoA means. A pilot that makes such an aggressive and sustained climb starting at almost the plane ceiling and climbing beyond it, that reacts to a sustained stall warning with sustained pull-up commands, that knows that the plane is falling like a rock with a nose-high attitude, and that just before the crash says that he doesn't understand what happens because he's been pulling up all the time, probably simply doesn't get level of knowledge needed (which by the way is not so much) to interpret correctly an angle-of-attach indicator and react correctly to said indication.

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            ...for his lack of interest to understand how a plane flies.

            A....men to that!
            But I would also extend that to 'how a plane's systems function and interact'.

            I think, especially with a sidestick, it's fairly easy for a pilot with inadequate training to be applying back pressure without realizing it. Yes, the instruments are a dead giveaway but the mind, in a panic state, tends to focus on one task to the exception of everything around it, here namely roll. The apparent managed guidance inputs also make no sense outside of the realm of panic.

            I think of this crash in terms of an understudy actor suddenly thrust onstage without knowing his lines, trying to improv but unable to grasp the situation beyond a single dimension.

            There should have been no need for improvisation here.

            Comment


            • Not that we could ever know, but I really think on some level the pilot did not think he was flying an airplane in the sense of "if I pull back on this, the flippers will go up and raise the nose or cause or worsen a stall".

              IMHO he thought he was making a request of a computer to make the airplane do what he thought needed to be done, and could not understand why the computer was not complying.
              Be alert! America needs more lerts.

              Eric Law

              Comment


              • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                Not that we could ever know, but I really think on some level the pilot did not think he was flying an airplane in the sense of "if I pull back on this, the flippers will go up and raise the nose or cause or worsen a stall".

                IMHO he thought he was making a request of a computer to make the airplane do what he thought needed to be done, and could not understand why the computer was not complying.
                Flying it like a child....A child of the magenta line.

                I know that one brush stroke doesn't paint the whole house...but the idea of flying with Air France does not excite me.
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                  Not that we could ever know, but I really think on some level the pilot did not think he was flying an airplane in the sense of "if I pull back on this, the flippers will go up and raise the nose or cause or worsen a stall".

                  IMHO he thought he was making a request of a computer to make the airplane do what he thought needed to be done, and could not understand why the computer was not complying.
                  Ok, but why was he telling the computer "I want the nose high, I want a 1.5G pull up, I want to keep climbing past my ceiling"????? Especially in the first climb after the AP disconnected.

                  Once in the stall I might understand (not really, let's say "rationalize") that maybe he thought "Full power, pull up hard, and Ok Computer will take care of not stalling". Although the "Stall, stall!" warning should have been a serious clue that the computer was not taking care of not stalling. That alarm never sounds in normal law, only when protections are lost. Now, why do I, a lame internet forumate, knows that, and not a rated airbus pilot?

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    ...Non adherence to the procedure, child of the magenta line, lack of training in UAS at cruise altitude, lack of practice in hand-flight at cruise...
                    Just a thought here, but initially, they 'perfectly' execute that particular stall recovery procedure of firewall the powerful engines and establish a healthy climb attitude and loose no altitude whatsoever, but instead gain the most altitude, because altitude is our friend...

                    ..that procedure that is taught and rehearsed over and over and over at puppy mill school so that it can be demonstrated in the simulator when you try to get a job at the regional airline....

                    That procedure that will be also taught at SMRFSDN, along with the more important corollary that pulling up when going slow is one of the better ways to stall an airplane- so don't just sit there and blindly pull up, but remember that the plane could, in rare instances, still be stalled, so don't be totally hard-headed adverse to lowering maybe a little bit...at least think about it.

                    Ok, back to the simulation- AFTER the plane stalls, the attitude looks pretty healthy (although, could it be that a plane can be stalled at any attitude??)...but maybe they literally assumed that the attitude was healthy and a stall was not possible...

                    (Not saying it's OK that they did that- but they did that, so just grasping at straws).

                    Bottom line- The whole thing is still unbelievable, but I do see the puppy-mill-redundantly-practiced, good-aggresive-no-alttude-loss recovery technique that is redundantly practiced over and over and over and over, without regard to an old-fashioned full stall and nose-lowering recovery...
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                      Just a thought here, but initially, they 'perfectly' execute that particular stall recovery procedure of firewall the powerful engines and establish a healthy climb attitude and loose no altitude whatsoever, but instead gain the most altitude, because altitude is our friend...

                      ..that procedure that is taught and rehearsed over and over and over at puppy mill school so that it can be demonstrated in the simulator when you try to get a job at the regional airline....

                      Bottom line- The whole thing is still unbelievable, but I do see the puppy-mill-redundantly-practiced, good-aggresive-no-alttude-loss recovery technique that is redundantly practiced over and over and over and over, without regard to an old-fashioned full stall and nose-lowering recovery...
                      That WAS the standard commercial aviation procedure, until the FAA and EASA read my "stall" thread. Now they have the same procedure for stall and approach to stall, which is "lower the AoA first, then care of the rest"

                      The FAA even removed the "minimize altitude loss" from the check-ride requirements.

                      However, the "old" procedure was till current when the AF accident happened.

                      --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                      --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                      Comment


                      • I think I've found out the reason for the initial (and I mean VERY initial) reaction to pull up hard immediately after the AP and AT disconnected.

                        Closely look at the PFD at between 2:18 and 2:20 in the YouTube video.

                        (here the link again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSz-UeEGbUw)

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • Can you give us a hint?

                          What I see in that timeframe is a very dramatic decrease in airspeed and a moderate decrease in altitude. The VS also indicates a little below zero, but it had been bouncing up and down near zero before the event.

                          I suppose if the pilot were highly focused on the altitude that might have caused him to pull back on the stick, although the amount of altitude loss doesn't seem to merit nearly full-scale deflection of the stick. But if it were me (as a person nowhere near qualified to fly that plane), I'd probably notice the airspeed loss, say "WTF" to myself, and go into troubleshooting mode before touching the stick, or anything else.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                            ...The FAA even removed the "minimize altitude loss" from the check-ride requirements...
                            Because of all of your ranting on various aviation fora.

                            And finally deciding that too many crashes were happening from stalls from from eye-rolling, relentless pull-ups.
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              Can you give us a hint?

                              What I see in that timeframe is a very dramatic decrease in airspeed and a moderate decrease in altitude.
                              You don't need a hint.

                              The altitude decreased 350/400ft. While the magnitude of the "altitude loss" is moderate, as you say, the rate at which it happens is not. That loss happens in less than 2 seconds, which is equivalent to a sink rate of at least 10000 fpm.

                              Yes, the VSI remains around zero.
                              But if the pilot was by chance looking at the altitude tape at that time and saw in unwinding like crazy, pulling up is a natural first reaction.

                              Stopping that natural reaction when the altitude loss stops, and even further, not having the same natural reaction of pushing down when the altitude tape starts winding up like crazy, the nose goes past 10° up, the VSI marks 7000fpm, and the plane climbs 2000ft past its assigned altitude, I don't understand.

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                You don't need a hint.

                                The altitude decreased 350/400ft. While the magnitude of the "altitude loss" is moderate, as you say, the rate at which it happens is not. That loss happens in less than 2 seconds, which is equivalent to a sink rate of at least 10000 fpm.
                                I don't buy it. If the pilot was focused on the altimeter at that point, why was he not focused on it when it begins to rapidly climb. I don't think there was any focus going on here aside from roll which is the most graphically obvious thing on the PFD.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X