Air France jet vanishes from radar

[mikoyan]

The "inadequate" is a bit misleading; they were never trained to fly the airplane manually; also, since the airbus are fly be wire; the thing wont let you stall on the first place on normal law; they never experienced a stall because the jet is not supposed to stall. This is why I prefer Boeings; at least it gives you feed back. The joysticks are not synchronized like an old school airplane; so one pilot could be doing one thing while the other a totally different movement, the computer averages both.

when the Airbus approaches stall speed the computer accelerates the engines to increase speed; they did just that to come off the stall. The temporary malfunction of the data probe confused the pilots. The darkness played a role too; they didn't have visual clues other than the instruments. They could not see that they were descending so fast; the only indication came from the instruments.

They probably got fixated on the instrument malfunction and on trying to get out of the stall like an airbus would do. Confusion played a mayor role. pilot comfortability or dependency to the characteristics of the fly by wire may be also a big factor. "Since this bird doesn't stall I just need more power" instead of reducing pitch and increasing speed; like a regular airplane.

 

It is said that the airplane also flew out of tested envelope; it is not know if the jet was capable of getting out of the stall, if the correct anti-stall procedures would had been carried out; due to high alpha and tail shadowing produced by the wings. In other words Airbus has not put its jets in such a extreme angles of attack to see if the jet can come out of a deep stall.

 

To me it is just too hard to blain the pilots alone from the comfort of my desk; we don't know what they were thinking at that moment what level of stress they were subjected to; if they got fixated instead of thinking through to solve the main problem. The scary thing is that 3 guys were not able to solve one problem!

 

This accident seem to be consequence of human factors an the trigger was the temporary malfunction of the data censors.

 

Check this video to see how an airbus handles: look around 6:00

 

[leafer]

Why did the captain decide to nap just as they entered the storm?

[Luigi Gorgonzola]

Why did the captain decide to nap just as they entered the storm?

Routine? Impression of safety? Trust in his colleagues (they weren't bloody n00bs at all)?

 

Guess, you' dhave to ask him to get the answer...

 

EDIT: I think the conclusion of Jeff Wise's article points out the real risk we're in by cautiouslessly allowing technology to merge into our daily life:

 

But the crash raises the disturbing possibility that aviation may well long be plagued by a subtler menace, one that ironically springs from the never-ending quest to make flying safer. Over the decades, airliners have been built with increasingly automated flight-control functions. These have the potential to remove a great deal of uncertainty and danger from aviation. But they also remove important information from the attention of the flight crew. While the airplane's avionics track crucial parameters such as location, speed, and heading, the human beings can pay attention to something else. But when trouble suddenly springs up and the computer decides that it can no longer cope—on a dark night, perhaps, in turbulence, far from land—the humans might find themselves with a very incomplete notion of what's going on. They'll wonder: What instruments are reliable, and which can't be trusted? What's the most pressing threat? What's going on? Unfortunately, the vast majority of pilots will have little experience in finding the answers.

 

Most would claim that the technology in question would not fail and in the (predictably) very rare cases of failure it would be designed in a way so the failing components would be covered/replaced/substituted by backup components. Inevitably, this leads to diminishing attention on emergency procedures to deal with "failing" technology (even though techology worked perfectly fine in the case of this AF flight).

 

I guess we either have to accept the very rare cases of failing or misleading technology which lead to the loss of lifes or we'd have to focus on extended training to deal with situationis like these.

 

As extended training (etc.) would lead to higher expenses, I assume we'll see similar tragedies more often in the future. :(

Edited December 15, 2011 by Luigi Gorgonzola

[eagledeer]

Nothing can replace hours in the logbook.

[GGTharos]

Good training.

 

Nothing can replace hours in the logbook.

[leafer]

No. It was one of those rhetorical questions.

 

As extended training (etc.) would lead to higher expenses, I assume we'll see similar tragedies more often in the future.

 

This has been the trend in the airline business since the beginning isn't it. It takes tragedy like this to get something off the ground.

[chaos]

Good training.

 

Although important, I'm not sure it would've prevented this accident. Complacency, more than anything is the killer these days. Automation, reliability and lack of system transparency all contribute to a gradual erosion of skills. Both Boeing and Airbus are at 'fault' here (as do many others)

 

Having said that... I find it amazing that one doesn't recognize a stall and take corrective action. Then again... I will never say it won't happen to me....

[GGTharos]

I'm pretty sure it would have.

 

Although important, I'm not sure it would've prevented this accident. Complacency, more than anything is the killer these days. Automation, reliability and lack of system transparency all contribute to a gradual erosion of skills. Both Boeing and Airbus are at 'fault' here (as do many others)

 

... because clearly the guy at the controls hadn't been taught to fly an aircraft. I could've done it better than him, and I've never flown an airbus. I did simulate what happened to them in A-10C - I had the advantage of knowing what was going to happen, but I also had the advantage of knowing how my simulated aircraft flies. This comes down to training, period. It doesn't matter how much FBW you have on your plane, you should still know how to fly it.

 

Having said that... I find it amazing that one doesn't recognize a stall and take corrective action. Then again... I will never say it won't happen to me....

[eagledeer]

Good training.

 

Training usually translates into hours in the logbook, but all things being equal, I'd rather fly with the guy with 3K hours in a particular aircraft than the guy with 500 and trunk full of certifications. The 3K guy has just seen more. That's why, imho, Air Force cargo jocks make the best airline pilots.

Edited December 15, 2011 by eagledeer
Syntax

[chaos]

 

... because clearly the guy at the controls hadn't been taught to fly an aircraft. I could've done it better than him, and I've never flown an airbus...

 

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about... or choose to act silly.

[aaron886]

I could've done it better than him, and I've never flown an airbus.

What an incredibly ignorant and arrogant statement. Even if you were a real pilot, real pilots don't talk like this. This is like pissing on the guy's grave. 228 people died and you're using it as a chance to show off your make-believe pilot "cred." I've never seen a more depressing showing from this forum, even knowing that you frequently spew BS.

 

I did simulate what happened to them in A-10C - I had the advantage of knowing what was going to happen, but I also had the advantage of knowing how my simulated aircraft flies.

 

Oh whoop-de-friggin-doo you simulated this in A-10C? REALLY? Why don't you go write that up in a logbook! You must be ready for the real deal! Someone get this pretend computer pilot a medal! :mad:

 

Accidents are situational. Mistakes are made in real time, under real stress, in the REAL world. Check your friggin ego and get off the computer for a few hours.

Edited December 15, 2011 by aaron886

[chaos]

Accidents are situational. Mistakes are made in real time, under real stress, in the REAL world. Check your friggin ego and get off the computer for a few hours.

 

Couldn't gave said it any better. It boggles the mind what went through his brain... Anyway, probably a good idea to lock this thread up or delete it altogether. Embarrassing...

[Viper101]

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about... or choose to act silly.

 

+1:thumbup:

 

 

Oh whoop-de-friggin-doo you simulated this in A-10C? REALLY? Why don't you go write that up in a logbook! You must be ready for the real deal! Someone get this pretend computer pilot a medal!

 

http://www.fsxrewards.com/rewards/medals.html

:megalol:

Edited December 16, 2011 by Viper101

[mikoyan]

now the question is: are pilots trained to fly on all this modes?

 

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

 

If not; it would be cynical to blain the pilots alone if they never flew on alternate law before.

[IvanK]

now the question is: are pilots trained to fly on all this modes?

 

http://www.airbusdriver.net/airbus_fltlaws.htm

 

If not; it would be cynical to blain the pilots alone if they never flew on alternate law before.

 

 

Yes. There is ample opportunity in conversion and regular recurrent Sims to fly in pretty much all the modes.

 

Every rated Airbus pilot on the planet has flown the Sim in Alternate and Direct law.

[Krebs20]

I could've done it better than him, and I've never flown an airbus.

 

No.

[GGTharos]

Yep, I apologize.

 

What an incredibly ignorant and arrogant statement. Even if you were a real pilot, real pilots don't talk like this.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

What bothers me is that pilots were not trained in flying under altrnate law and without IAS. Lack of training is not their direct fault.

[aaron886]

Yep, I apologize.

 

And I apologize for a disproportionate reaction.

 

What bothers me is that pilots were not trained in flying under altrnate law and without IAS. Lack of training is not their direct fault.

 

I think we've established they did have training in the Alternate Law flight characteristics, but their familiarity with it was probably only proportional to the smaller percentage of their training/flight hours spent in that mode.

[Luse]

I could've done it better than him, and I've never flown an airbus. I did simulate what happened to them in A-10C - I had the advantage of knowing what was going to happen, but I also had the advantage of knowing how my simulated aircraft flies. This comes down to training, period. It doesn't matter how much FBW you have on your plane, you should still know how to fly it.

 

That's Ignorance if I have ever seen it. Disrespectful arrogance. When you fly an Airbus. Then have the lives of yourself and 228 others disappear then you can say you could of done it better. :mad:

[topol-m]

That's Ignorance if I have ever seen it. Disrespectful arrogance. When you fly an Airbus. Then have the lives of yourself and 228 others disappear then you can say you could of done it better. :mad:

 

Take it easy, he didn't steal your breakfast so no need to overreact.

Edited December 16, 2011 by topol-m

[aaron886]

Yeah now would be a good time to let that go...

[Yurgon]

The French "Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses" released their final report. From a quick glance, it looks like a confirmation of the preliminary reports.

 

Excerpt:

 

Thus, the accident resulted from the following succession of events:

�

• Temporary inconsistency between the airspeed measurements, likely following the obstruction of the Pitot probes by ice crystals that, in particular, caused the autopilot disconnection and the reconfiguration to alternate law;�
• Inappropriate control inputs that destabilized the flight path;
  
• The lack of any link by the crew between the loss of indicated speeds called out and the appropriate procedure;
  
• The late identification by the PNF of the deviation from the flight path and the insufficient correction applied by the PF;
  
• The crew not identifying the approach to stall, their lack of immediate response and the exit from the flight envelope;�
• The crew’s failure to diagnose the stall situation and consequently a lack of inputs that would have made it possible to recover from it.

 

BTW, Wikipedia links an article from late April that partly blames Airbus's sidesticks for the crash. Whether or not you agree with it, it is an interesting read.

[ALDEGA]

Even the most experienced and accomplished pilots make fatal mistakes.

 

There's an interesting TV-series about aircraft crashes which will also cover this crash (final episode of season 12):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_series)

[Yurgon]

OT:

 

There's an interesting TV-series about aircraft crashes which will also cover this crash (final episode of season 12):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_(TV_series)

 

I know that show, and interesting as it is, I don't have the attention span of either a five or a 95 year old. The repetitious nature of the show keeps driving me crazy every time I watch it.

 

Besides, they're extremely talented at ignoring obvious questions (if Helios Flight 522 crashed because the cabin pressure switch was set to manual, why on earth didn't the crew set it to auto prior to takeoff?! IIRC that question didn't even come up in that particular episode).

 

But given how the whole aeronautical community doesn't understand the actions of the second officer of AF 447, I guess the showrunners won't screw that episode up if they get their facts right.