Air France 447 crash.....possibly found after 2 years

Discussion in 'Commercial Aviation' started by Praying4OCS, Apr 4, 2011.

    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Catmando Keep your knots up.

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,672
    Ratings Received:
    +1,216 / 1 / -0
    Damn! Where were you when I needed you?

    I have flown a couple models of Airbus over two decades, although not the A-330. Nevertheless they all are very similar in design, operation and procedures.

    Too bad you couldn't have told me about those "pretty serious design flaws" sooner!"
    Wow! I never knew. Otherwise I would never have risked my millions of passengers' lives over those many years!
    • Like Like x 2
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    wink VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    Message Count:
    2,726
    Ratings Received:
    +769 / 0 / -0
    Add to the very little you know, how many mishaps may have been avoided because you what you call "design flaws." Some of the systems that can confound in rare and stressful circumstances, prevent far more incidents and mishaps in routine operations where distraction, neglect and poor monkey skills are present. You don't read about the third world airline flight NOT flying into the ground or NOT stalling at cruise altitude because of the Airbus design philosophy. The sad truth is that many Airbus aircraft are flown by third world flight crews that are far less well trained and have a fraction of a US or EU crew's experience or training support.

    As I pointed out, not a design philosophy thing, Airbus or otherwise. But even to your point, they are not that similar in that the cues the Colgan crew were getting were pretty straight forward and unambiguous to a well trained crew. The Air France incident was far different in that there were conflicting cues and alerts, let alone other factors such as the high altitude, Capt on crew break, etc.
    • Like Like x 1
  1. Sapper! Anyone who bags on the Army can kiss my @$$

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Message Count:
    236
    Ratings Received:
    +51 / 0 / -0
    The article says the word stall was blared by the computer 76 times. From the audio transcripts it was said that the cricket/clicker (whatchamacallit, I dunno) turned off during the conflict (alternate law). Does that mean the verbal stall warning was off as well? I'd guess it would because of the way it was programmed to discount the attitude and airspeed as a factor in the stall, but I was just curious. Thinking that because the decent took somewhere around 3 minutes that "stall" would be repeated probably once a second or so. That means the verbal alarm was off as well (sorry dunno what the voice alarm is called)? Trying to convey some humility cause lord knows that poor SOB just got flamed....
    • Contributor

    wlawr005 VT7

    Member Since:
    Apr 20, 2009
    Message Count:
    1,189
    Ratings Received:
    +376 / 0 / -2
    Airwarriors rule #163.4b-

    Never use know and but in the same sentence i.e., "I know very little about ____ , but..." You might be perceived as having your head up your ass.
    • Like Like x 5
  2. HAL Pilot Thanks

    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Message Count:
    4,477
    Ratings Received:
    +2,497 / 2 / -0
    From what I've seen, everything with a yoke/control column has both sides moving together. The A330 is the only Airbus cockpit I've been in with a side controller/joystick. No cross movement in it. There are other Airbuses with joysticks but I don't know how they interact. I think they are the same as the A330 but that is just a WAG.

    Any Air Force guys on here know how it is in the C-17 or dual cockpit F-16s?

    And like Wink said - as much as I personally don't like some of the design philosophies of Airbus, they have probably prevented a bunch of accidents at 3rd world airlines that have pilots with training that is no where near the standards of the U.S. or ither major industrial countries.
  3. KBayDog Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Message Count:
    5,089
    Ratings Received:
    +2,638 / 1 / -0
    I agree: Airbus has serious design flaws. So does Boeing, Cessna, Lockheed, Sikorsky, Eurocopter, etc.

    However, have you stopped to think who has the greatest design flaws in the history of aviation? I'll give you a hint...it's these people:

    [IMG]

    If humans were designed to fly, we wouldn't have these:
    [IMG]

    ...we'd have these:

    [IMG]

    Human beings are a stubborn lot, though. Since apparently we haven't heard, we invented these:

    [IMG]

    ...which are pretty good, pretty reliable, designed by some smart sons-of-guns, and have allowed us to slip the surly bonds for over a century.

    However, the biggest limitation in our attempt to successfully replicate what our pet parakeets can do is, and will always be, this:

    [IMG]
    • Like Like x 2
  4. phrogpilot73 Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    Jun 8, 2005
    Message Count:
    6,830
    Ratings Received:
    +2,254 / 0 / -2
    Which then gets my enginerd/work at Pax brain going... Do they connect with a rod/tube then put in inputs to the FBW system? Or are there servos that move the other control yoke?
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    wink VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    Message Count:
    2,726
    Ratings Received:
    +769 / 0 / -0
    Based on my years of jumpseat riding in Airbuses, each control stick, flap or gear lever is an independant electrical switch/input of some sort. The power levers don't even move when the auto throttles are engaged. Airbus pilots please clarify.
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Catmando Keep your knots up.

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,672
    Ratings Received:
    +1,216 / 1 / -0
    The sidestick controllers are totally separate. Each one sends a separate electronic signal to each of the flight controller computers.
    In the case of disagreement or opposite control input, the Captain's sidestick has the authority to override the First Officer's.

    FWIW, the sidestick is rarely used and even discouraged, except for T.O. and landing. Even "autoland" was supposed to be done at least once a day.
    It is not an airplane. It is a flying computer.

    [Edit: Upon furtheer review, the article says the cross-contols average out. So maybe the 330 is different.... or I need to go back to ground school.]
    • Contributor

    eas7888 Corpus, because who doesn't love fat chicks?

    Member Since:
    Apr 19, 2010
    Message Count:
    835
    Ratings Received:
    +114 / 0 / -0
    Aren't most new transport category aircraft like that? Jumpseating in the cockpit of the 777 made me feel like I was in a video game, not the cockpit of an airliner.
  5. HAL Pilot Thanks

    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Message Count:
    4,477
    Ratings Received:
    +2,497 / 2 / -0
    The A330 is the same. The sidesticks are independent and the Captain can override the FO. I'm not sure if his has a priority or an override button, but he can do it.

    Our A330 guys typically handfly up at least to 10,000 before selcecting the autopilot on and many go up to FL180 or even cruise (unless it is an RNAV departure which then is FAA required autopilot on by 1000 ft.). Somewhere on the approach they click it off and hand fly the landing. Most will click off the autothrottles in gusty or crosswinds to reduce thepitch oscillations. We only autoland if the weather calls for it. So in otherwords, they hand fly the planes about the same as we do in the 767.

    What are pilots initially complain about then get used too is the lack of feel in the sidestick and the autothrottles not moving the power levers. After a couple of hundered hours in the plane, they most like it.
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • Contributor

    usmarinemike Now part of the 42%.

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2007
    Message Count:
    1,382
    Ratings Received:
    +339 / 0 / -0
    The Global War on Error in 1 Airwarriors post. Genius.

    BTW, where's your Vitruvian Man's weiner?
    • Like Like x 1
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    nittany03 We be jammin'

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Message Count:
    3,500
    Ratings Received:
    +675 / 0 / -0
    So this is, sadly, another case study in failed CRM. And though we can all sit back and chuck spears, "there are days when you're the ace of the base, and days when you can't find your ass with both hands and a flashlight," to quote my first on-wing in VT-3. But even though we've beaten that to death, one question for the engineers and ATPs in the crowd:

    Not to imply that the Airbus series are "suffering from insurmountable design flaws, etc." But who thought it was a good idea to build an airplane where you AVERAGE the inputs from two sets of flight controls and send that to the computers? Either you have the controls or you don't. If you don't have the controls, and you take the controls, it's usually because you believe the other guy is terminally AFU, and you intend to save him from himself, be he a student or whoever. There are right control inputs and wrong control inputs in any given situation. Say, for the sake of argument, I am trimmed up on-speed in the landing pattern in the front seat of a T-45. Notionally, I get a wild hair and decide to plant the stick in my lap. This is heinously wrong, and will afford me less than 15 seconds to live if uncorrected. My theoretical backseater screams like a little girl and yells "Nittany, you f***ing idiot" while slamming the throttle to MRT, going boards in, and shoving the stick to neutral. Notionally, he does this in time to keep the jet from departing controlled flight, and we live. This would be a correct input in this situation. What is gained by averaging out these inputs? Is there ever a reason given in ground school?
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Catmando Keep your knots up.

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,672
    Ratings Received:
    +1,216 / 1 / -0
    99% of the time, Airbusi are flown in "Normal LAW" which means among many other things, the pilot cannot physically stall the aircraft. It also limits "stupid" inputs. But AF447 was in "Alternate LAW" and many protections are no longer available. This is practiced in the sim, but not as a compound emergency which AF447 experienced. The FAA decides how sims are performed, more than any airline for us in the US.

    I still believe in my model of Airbus, the capt. had sidestick priority. But a check of the A-330 confirms that opposite controls inputs are averaged. Nevertheless, all Airbus that I know of have a CAUTION whenever there is opposite control input. Pushing that button gives sidestick authority to that pilot. From the A-330 Manual:

    When the PF makes a sidestick input, an electrical order is sent to the flight control computers. If the PNF makes a simultaneous sidestick input, both signals are algebraically summed and both PF and PNF green lights flash on the glareshield. This situation might occur in the case of an instinctive PNF reaction on the sidestick. If the PNF needs to take control, he must press and hold the take-over pb in order to avoid simultaneous sidestick inputs and announce, "I have control".

    In the case of a SIDESTICK FAULT ECAM warning due to an electrical failure, the affected sidestick order sent to the computers is zeroed. This means that the affected sidestick has been deactivated and there is no further procedure associated with this warning.

    In the case of pilot incapacitation where a sidestick input is being made, or in the case of a mechanical failure leading to a jammed sidestick, the inputs are again algebraically summed. There is no associated ECAM caution. In either of these cases, the intervening pilot must press the take-over pb to gain single sidestick authority. The pb must be depressed for at least 40 seconds to permanently deactivate the affected sidestick. However, if a sidestick has been deactivated, it may be reactivated by depressing its take-over pb.

    [IMG]

    [IMG]
    • Like Like x 3
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    nittany03 We be jammin'

    Member Since:
    Jan 4, 2003
    Message Count:
    3,500
    Ratings Received:
    +675 / 0 / -0
    OK, so if you're no-kidding trying to prevent stupidity, there is a mechanism available to take sole control of the aircraft. That makes more sense.
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Catmando Keep your knots up.

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,672
    Ratings Received:
    +1,216 / 1 / -0
    A somewhat disrespectful (but also somewhat true) image of a 'normal' airline captain compared to an Airbus captain:

    [IMG][IMG]
    • Like Like x 6
  6. MasterBates Well-Known Member

    Member Since:
    May 31, 2006
    Message Count:
    9,762
    Ratings Received:
    +1,773 / 0 / -2
    Nice one Cat.

    Sent from my PH44100 using Tapatalk
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    wink VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    Message Count:
    2,726
    Ratings Received:
    +769 / 0 / -0
    40 seconds seems like a long time to be holding down the button to gain unilateral control. If you have something like sever turbulence, out of control flight, another pilot to fight or keep off the controls after incapacitation, it might be hard to keep a finger on that button for 40 seconds. 40 seconds is a lifetime when you are upside down in a transport category aircraft hurdling to toward the earth.
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Catmando Keep your knots up.

    Member Since:
    Dec 13, 2005
    Message Count:
    1,672
    Ratings Received:
    +1,216 / 1 / -0
    Just to clarify:

    Unilateral control is immediate when the PB is pushed, accompanied by an aural warning and visual cue.
    Dual control returns when the PB is realeased.
    However, if the PB is held down for 40 seconds, the unilateral control becomes permanent, rather than temporary.
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    wink VS NFO. Blue and Gold Off. Former Recruiter.

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    Message Count:
    2,726
    Ratings Received:
    +769 / 0 / -0
    OK That sounds more resonable.
  7. Ray-Ban FinSel SNA April 2012 (OCS 21SEPT12)

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Message Count:
    212
    Ratings Received:
    +28 / 0 / -0
    Not to mention, the Colgan flight was a Dash 8 by Dehavilland of Canada, not Airbus. Secondly, the Colgan pilot didn't respond necessarily incorrectly, for a T-tail tail plane stall, pulling back on the stick is the correct action to recover when the stall is ice induced, which is what the pilots thought caused the stall.

    Sent from my HTC Evo 3D
  8. JD81 FUBIJAR

    Member Since:
    May 17, 2005
    Message Count:
    436
    Ratings Received:
    +100 / 0 / -0
    I am an instructor for an airline who's airplanes all have T-tails, not one of them recovers from a stall by pulling back on the stick/yoke, no matter what caused the stall.
  9. Ray-Ban FinSel SNA April 2012 (OCS 21SEPT12)

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2011
    Message Count:
    212
    Ratings Received:
    +28 / 0 / -0
    I may be interpreting this document wrong, but this was written by NASA on ICTS (top of page two): http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/1999/TM-1999-208901.pdf

    Or page 4 of this FAA advisory circular:
    http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_G...50e1cc3a86256b6e004fcd3f/$FILE/AC23.143-1.pdf

    You'd know way more than I would on the subject, but again that was my interpretation. I know when the NTSB was having a hearing many experts came in and spoke in favor of this argument; but I guess we'll never know for sure.
  10. HAL Pilot Thanks

    Member Since:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Message Count:
    4,477
    Ratings Received:
    +2,497 / 2 / -0
    The Colgan pilots did not think they had a tail plane stall. They talked about icing but never said they had or thought they had a tail plane stall. they just fucked it away. There was some talk by speculators and the investigators of the possiblity they might have had a tail plane stall, but it was quickly dismissed. If it had been a tail plane stall, those passengers would probably still be walking around today and calling the pilots heroes as they would have inadvertantly recovered the aircraft with the nose up control inputs and raising the flaps. But it wasn't and they're dead.
    Actually, as much as I feel Ray-Ban is posting out of his depth, the correct response to a tail plane stall is to pull back on the yoke, retract the flaps and reduce power. But you have to be very positive you have a tail plane stall as if you are in a regualr stall, this will just completely fuck you over. T-tails, especially turboprop A(vice jet - i.e. B-727, DC-9, etc.) are especially suseptible to tail plane icing. The biggest symptom of tail plane icing is the aircraft wanting to nose over and this tendency increasing as you increased power/airspeed. If your plane abruptly noses over as you add flaps, you are in a tail plane stall. In the Twin Otter, as we picked up ice, we had to increase power to maintain airspeed. If all else remainded the same, we had normal icing. If the nose started pitching down when we added power, we suspected tail plane icing and we would land with less/no flaps and a higher Vref to guard against a tail plane stall.
    • Super Moderator
    • Contributor

    Brett327 Magnum!

    Member Since:
    Dec 23, 2004
    Message Count:
    9,270
    Ratings Received:
    +2,649 / 4 / -7
    I think Ray Ban is confusing a tail plane stall with a normal wing stall.

    Brett

Share This Page