Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

F***ing unbelievable!

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

  • #31
    Originally posted by Roy C View Post
    true, but lets think, stick position. slightly aft of centre and throttles set to 80% NH and the aircraft will climb out of the clouds into the moonlight. you can drive your car without a speedo/odometer, y gear, x revs, and you go at z MPH or kmph, because you have done that so many times before. .

    Whatever valid arguments you may have had disappeared immediately as soon as you compared flying to driving a car. If I suddenly lose all instrumentation in my car, I can simply take my foot off the gas and pull off to the side of the road......try that in an aircraft.

    As for "stick position", I've been flying a long time and correlation between stick position and attitude is iffy at best especially with variables such as load feel, current trim, and energy state.
    Parlour Talker Extraordinaire

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Vnav View Post
      Whatever valid arguments you may have had disappeared immediately as soon as you compared flying to driving a car. If I suddenly lose all instrumentation in my car, I can simply take my foot off the gas and pull off to the side of the road......try that in an aircraft.

      As for "stick position", I've been flying a long time and correlation between stick position and attitude is iffy at best especially with variables such as load feel, current trim, and energy state.
      Then you have obviously missed the point over instruments and the info they give, and he didnt loose all intraments. as for variables, you missed that point as well. the pilot has flown thousands of hours and should know exactly what sort of power setting are required for the climb for that flight if he doesn't ... but hey as i said i'm an engineer i just fix the things.... i'll leave this debate to others

      Comment


      • #33
        Well, these pilots, unlike Air France or Austral that had only ureliable airspeed, had three airspeed indicators showing different things, three altimeters showing different things, two VSI showing different things, and simultaneous stall and overspeed warning. This is a quite tough situation.

        They tried to tell which instruments were right and which were wrong. And that was in fact their doom.

        They should have declared all the pitot-static system(s) unreliable (that would have led to ignore all those instruments and the overspeed warning but not the stall warning) and revert to "pitch+power=performance" (they had 3 attitude indicators showing the same thing and consistent engines' parameters).

        Other mistakes were relying in the altitude informed by the ATC radar (when in fact that altitude is informed by the airplane via transponder using the same static system) and not noticing the RA when it became available, that they could have used to fly say at 2000 ft over the ocean.

        But all that is easy from the here. In the cockpit with 8 main flight instruments showing inconsistent things and two contradictory "you are about to die" warnings, it's another thing.

        --- 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
          But all that is easy from the here. In the cockpit with 8 main flight instruments showing inconsistent things and two contradictory "you are about to die" warnings, it's another thing.
          Well stated!

          The altitude thing does seem to point to a gap in pilot training. There have been a number of incidents over the years where pilots have expected ATC to provide accurate altitude info, not realizing that the info ATC provides comes from the aircraft's own altimeters. And that if the altimeters are lying to the pilots, they're probably lying to ATC also.
          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

          Eric Law

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
            I know it's not a healthy attitude, but I can't help but think that some things can't happen to me.
            Examples include this, Air France, Spanair...
            Likewise, and I will add along with your "unhealthy attitude" that this will sound ridiculously stupid, but having flown a few thousand hours putting around the world in Microsoft Flight Simulator since I was a teen I can't ever recall a situation in which I had such a basic disregard for flying the airplane and monitoring primary flight instruments. The same goes for the comparatively low 50 hours I spent flying light aircraft.

            Now having gotten that silly statement out of the way, it seems like there is a serious connection happening between pilots relying heavily on autopilot and airplanes that fly themselves and are supposedly infallible, and a lack of basic aviating skills at moments when they are most needed. There appears to be a level of complacency and comfort with these systems that has people forgetting the basics. This is not really new, but it's a little alarming that it is occurring with pilots that are supposed to be well trained and with a lot of experience, and in aircraft that have been in service for quite some time.

            Comment


            • #36
              When you think of AF447...Bonin says "I've been pulling back this WHOLE time"...which in a FBW Airbus is the way to go up instead of down, whereas in any conventional aircraft that is the quickest way to a stall, and it just so happens that he was in the exact conditions necessary for that to happen in this airplane that is engineered to never let that happen...

              Comment


              • #37
                I recall from somewhere an aviation saying that goes on the lines of.....

                When it's all going wrong......Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

                Aviate....To me that means set power settings to a level that will keep the aircraft flying and preferably climbing a little.

                Navigate....Find out where you are.

                Communicate....now you know where you are and are going up at a flyable speed, call ATC and tell them what is happening. You could at this stage include the word "HELP !"

                .....or am I being too simplistic ?
                If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                  Likewise, and I will add along with your "unhealthy attitude" that this will sound ridiculously stupid, but having flown a few thousand hours putting around the world in Microsoft Flight Simulator since I was a teen I can't ever recall a situation in which I had such a basic disregard for flying the airplane and monitoring primary flight instruments. The same goes for the comparatively low 50 hours I spent flying light aircraft.
                  What this does not capture is that you've done something a zillion times, and this time, something is wrong...but what? (This is not arguing AGAINST what you said, it's ADDING to it).
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                    IAviate....To me that means set power settings to a level that will keep the aircraft flying and preferably climbing a little.

                    .....or am I being too simplistic ?
                    Maybe not simple enough?

                    Aviate means somewhat right side up, speed somewhere between stall and overspeed, not flying close to the ground or mountans, as best as you can.
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                      When you think of AF447...Bonin says "I've been pulling back this WHOLE time"...which in a FBW Airbus is the way to go up instead of down, whereas in any conventional aircraft that is the quickest way to a stall, and it just so happens that he was in the exact conditions necessary for that to happen in this airplane that is engineered to never let that happen...
                      That's not correct. There is an "engineered" alternate law in this airplane to which the airplane reverts under certain combination of malfunctions. In this condition the plane can stall. They were in alternate law and they knew it because they called "alternate law".

                      The sound warning that, unlike other planes, is a bitching Betty shouting "Stall Stall Stall" (not just an abstract sound) and that sounded uninterruptedly for like one minute (and intermittently for the remaining of the fall) should have been a clue, even if you want to disregard the other "airmanship clues" like three attitude indicators showing 10° ANU and three altimeters spinning down with two VSI showing -10,000fpm and mushy controls and unstable in roll, combination that had the words "STALL" written all over the place.

                      It happened to me once during the PPL course. I was in a C-152. We were practicing stalls, I closed the throttle and slowly pulled up as the speed went down to try to keep the altitude. The stall warning whistled and then screamed, and just kept doing that. I was keeping the yoke against my chest and the nose of the plane would not go down. I've said "this plane doesn't want to stall", to what the instructor replied "Ah, no? You are nose up and falling 2000fpm. If this is not a stall I don't know what could be one". I will never forget that, and I guess I wouldn't even if I was flying an Airbus. But it seems that these pilots lacked this kind of basic instruction. That's why I was saying in the original AF thread that this accident goes well beyond the pitot problem and the lack of UAS training, all the way back to basic training.

                      --- 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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Gabriel View Post

                        It happened to me once during the PPL course. I was in a C-152. We were practicing stalls, I closed the throttle and slowly pulled up as the speed went down to try to keep the altitude. The stall warning whistled and then screamed, and just kept doing that. I was keeping the yoke against my chest and the nose of the plane would not go down. I've said "this plane doesn't want to stall", to what the instructor replied "Ah, no? You are nose up and falling 2000fpm. If this is not a stall I don't know what could be one". I will never forget that, and I guess I wouldn't even if I was flying an Airbus. But it seems that these pilots lacked this kind of basic instruction. That's why I was saying in the original AF thread that this accident goes well beyond the pitot problem and the lack of UAS training, all the way back to basic training.
                        That's interesting Gabriel because I always got a full break and pitch over in the same aircraft.Maybe you were more aft CG?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          That's not correct. There is an "engineered" alternate law in this airplane to which the airplane reverts under certain combination of malfunctions. In this condition the plane can stall. They were in alternate law and they knew it because they called "alternate law".
                          When I said "engineered" to never let that happen, I was talking about normal law. It seems there are very few instances in which you would be flying such an aircraft in alternate law, this being one of them, and despite calling it out, and despite the stall warning, it appears Bonin continued to operate the aircraft as he would in any other situation.

                          Your Cessna 152 experience is a great example and a sort of miniaturized version of what happened to them on a basic aerodynamic level.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Deadstick View Post
                            That's interesting Gabriel because I always got a full break and pitch over in the same aircraft.Maybe you were more aft CG?
                            Maybe. At 6' 4" I am quite tall. The seat was not moved further back because there are some, you know, stops, to prevent them come off the rails. I don't remember the fuel. I don't think we had any baggage other than the usual flight stuff (flight bag, manuals, etc...)

                            However, as I've said, that was the only time that that happened to me. Other stall were as you described. Not that I made so may full stalls in the 152 anyway. I did my PPL in the Tomahawk (where the typical full stall is an incipient spin if not 100% coordinated, and sometimes even then), then moved to the 152, but after a few hours I returned to the Tomahawk. Much more comfortable for anybody, and especially for a tall person, and, in my opinion, much more fun to fly.

                            --- 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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Leftseat86 View Post
                              When I said "engineered" to never let that happen, I was talking about normal law. It seems there are very few instances in which you would be flying such an aircraft in alternate law, this being one of them, and despite calling it out, and despite the stall warning, it appears Bonin continued to operate the aircraft as he would in any other situation.
                              That is true. The question is why.

                              Your Cessna 152 experience is a great example and a sort of miniaturized version of what happened to them on a basic aerodynamic level.
                              And don't you think that them, being two of them in the cockpit, both with several thousands of hours, both with PPL, CPL and ATP licence, and years of experience, should have known better than a 18 y/o bare new PPL with 40 hours TT (me)? And still, I should have known better too. I think that basic training is not good in general. I don't think that I had a very good basic training.

                              --- 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


                              • #45
                                And they did it yet again!

                                Air France, keep trying this hard and you will eventually manage to have another accident.

                                Unlike other cases where there seemed to be no one flying the airplane, in this case luckily there was one pilot flying the plane: THE FRIGGING RELIEF PILOT SEATED IN THE OBSERVER'S SEAT, FOR GOD SAKE!

                                An Air France Boeing 777-200, registration F-GSPP performing flight AF-471 (dep Nov 15th) from Caracas (Venezuela) to Paris Charles de Gaulle (France), was on a Category III ILS approach to CDG's runway 08R, low visibility procedures were in effect, descending through 320 feet AGL at 136 KCAS and 1 degree nose up attitude, when a Master Caution Warning was issued and the flight mode announciators reverted from "LAND 3" to "LAND 2". The captain (ATPL, 14,370 hours total, 6,645 hours on type) was pilot flying, the relief pilot (7,490 hours total, 5,271 hours on type) on the observer seat called out "Alarm", the first officer (7,823 hours total, 3,258 hours on type) called out "go-around", the captain responded by pushing the throttles forward to initiate the go-around disconnecting autothrottle in the process. A nose up pitch command on the control yoke is recorded however insufficient in strength to disconnect the autopilot. While the aircraft began to accelerate the attitude changed from +1.15 degrees to -0.5 degrees. The captain ordered the flaps to be reduced to 20 degrees, the pitch decreases further to 2 degrees nose down. The relief pilot called out "Pitch!" 10 seconds after the go-around was initiated both crew pulled the yoke now resulting in the autopilot disconnecting, the aircraft pitched up sharply resulting in +1.84G vertical acceleration, the attitude changed from 2 degrees nose down to 7 degrees nose up and subsequently reducing to 4 degrees nose up when the control yoke was returned to neutral, speed was now 169 KCAS. The relief pilot again called "Pitch!". The crew applied nose up input on the control yoke, the aircraft reached its lowest point of 63 feet AGL at 180 KCAS, the nose rose to 11 degrees nose up in 2 seconds and subsequently 19 degrees nose up and the aircraft climbed out to safety. Climbing through 870 feet the gear is retracted and the crew positioned the aircraft for a second approach, that resulted in a safe landing.
                                Aviation Herald - News, Incidents and Accidents in Aviation


                                Approximate timeline:

                                0s FMA goes to NO LAND3 and master caution
                                1s nothing
                                2s nothing
                                3s nothing
                                4s nothing
                                5s nothing
                                6s nothing
                                7s nothing

                                8s The relief pilot calls "Alarm!"
                                9s The FO calls GA, the captain disconnect the AT and advances the throttles.

                                10s The AP is never disconnected
                                11s so it keeps tracking the glide slope.
                                11s Because the captain increased the thrust
                                12s but nobody pitched up,
                                13s the speed keeps increasing
                                14s and the nose keeps going down
                                15s to keep tracking the glide slope.
                                16s There is no pilot action
                                17s whatsoever.

                                18s The relief pilot calls "Pitch!"
                                19s There is an initial pull-up by both pilots,

                                20s but then the captain,
                                21s never stating what the heck his intentions were,
                                22s pushed down
                                21s thus neutralizing the pull of the FO,
                                22s so the plane keeps descending.

                                23s The relief pilot calls "Pitch" again.
                                24s The captain let go on the push and, since the copilot was still applying a pull-up force,
                                25s the nose pitches abruptly up.

                                After that, they stabilize the go-around and go for a second approach and safe landing.

                                And if all that was not enough:
                                The French BEA released their final report in French complaining, that the cockpit voice had been deleted prior to the BEA getting access to it although the crew initially had preserved the recordings

                                --- 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

                                Working...
                                X