Air France passenger jet drops off radar

[tgh]

Many thanks for your extremely informative (and interesting!) posts, jb747. You really are an asset to these forums.

+1

 

[jb747]

I appreciate the honesty, doesn't make me feel any more comfortable flying though I guess all you can do is cross your fingers the people in control of the aircraft happen to be ones capable to do the job when things get bad. What else can you do except not fly or try and choose flights with Boeings !!! :shock:

Not choosing based on the price of the ticket is a good start. Training is one of the first things that is wound back if you want to save dollars.

 

[Moody]

Digging this thread up again, because I've just noticed a very chilling coughpit voice transcript on AVHerald (has probably been there for a while, but I've just noticed it): Crash: Air France A332 over Atlantic on Jun 1st 2009, aircraft entered high altitude stall and impacted ocean

You'll have to scroll down a bit - it's at the bottom of the most recent post.

The most "chilling" part for mine is the BEA comment :-

The copilots had received no high altitude training for the "Unreliable IAS" procedure and manual aircraft handling​

In short - they were clueless about how to fly the aircraft in the situation they found themselves in. I'm with JT on this one .... "There is no-one I would rather have at the controls than a Qantas pilot.”

 

[Berlin]

Not choosing based on the price of the ticket is a good start. Training is one of the first things that is wound back if you want to save dollars.

Seems to be like with so many things: You get what you pay for. However, Air France had never been on my list of cheap but potentially dodgy airlines :shock:

I must say... As a fairly frequent flyer, nothing has scared me more in recent years than this horrible incident. And the more we find out about why it happened, the worse it really gets!

 

[jb747]

The most "chilling" part for mine is the BEA comment :-

The copilots had received no high altitude training for the "Unreliable IAS" procedure and manual aircraft handling​

In short - they were clueless about how to fly the aircraft in the situation they found themselves in.

Well, this is a way of blaming their training, but, I'd actually have expected a pilot to be able to work out that smooth control is mandatory, and full backstick cannot have a good ending. Perhaps that's the problem. The pilots that the modern world wants are extremely small font....we are sometimes accused of being bus drivers, and now, perhaps, that's what they are hiring.

How much training does it take to learn to leave both the power and attitude where they are. It worked for the last XX hours...it will probably continue to work.

 

[harvyk]

Well, this is a way of blaming their training, but, I'd actually have expected a pilot to be able to work out that smooth control is mandatory, and full backstick cannot have a good ending.

I would like to know why someone who "knew" what they where doing would do full back stick in virtually any stage of cruise.

Just out of interest JB, I would imagine that if IAS was suspected of being faulty, the correct procedure would be something along the lines of don't do anything rash (aka keep the plane level and set to a certain throttle setting) and then try to ascertain air speed via secondary sources, and \ or try to ascertain if any of the gauges is still accurate.

 

[UP4014]

....we are sometimes accused of being bus drivers, and now, perhaps, that's what they are hiring.

The name "Airbus" comes to mind.

 

[jb747]

I would like to know why someone who "knew" what they where doing would do full back stick in virtually any stage of cruise.

Just out of interest JB, I would imagine that if IAS was suspected of being faulty, the correct procedure would be something along the lines of don't do anything rash (aka keep the plane level and set to a certain throttle setting) and then try to ascertain air speed via secondary sources, and \ or try to ascertain if any of the gauges is still accurate.

There are two variations to the procedure. The checklist action is to select climb thrust and 5 degrees nose up. The thinking there is that from those two settings, nothing will go dramatically wrong in a hurry, and they should be able to get the aircraft back to a safe state from there. But, at altitude, that will ultimately give you a problem, as the aircraft will both climb and decelerate. Alternatively, as you've most likely been cruising at 2.5 degrees nose up, and 85% power for the last few hours, why not simply leave the aircraft at exactly those settings. Nothing should happen from there. The issue is quite likely to be realising that you have an airspeed issue before you've done something rash with the attitude. It's quite simple sit here and say that pilots should have sufficient idea of the performance of their aircraft to realise that even 5 degrees nose up at altitude is not a tenable attitude, but looking back through history and there are plenty of accidents that have resulted from loss of control after pilots have selected outright silly attitudes in response to pitot problems.

In older aircraft, loss of airspeed data didn't really do all that much to the aircraft. The autopilot might drop out, and the aircraft may give you a warning, but the coughpit isn't likely to be all that noisy a place. But, in the new ones (and I'll use Airbus simply because I'm most familiar with what they will do), there will be multiple alarms, associated with loss of autopilots, auto thrust, flight directors, reversion to alternative flight laws (which totally changes the way the aircraft behaves). The aircraft is quite likely to be out of trim, and because AB only give you pitch trim in direct law, and never give you any ability to trim in roll, you won't be able to do anything about it. Basically the aircraft will revert to a state in which it is surprisingly difficult to fly...but, and I'll emphasise the 'but', it should not be an issue to any properly prepared crew, nor should it result in any flight path deviation.

You don't need total loss of airspeed to make things interesting either. Anything that causes different data to be displayed across the coughpit can cause problems. Loss of heating to sideslip or angle of attack probes can cause the aircraft to lose automatics and revert to lower laws in a similar fashion.

 

[eastwest101]

In older aircraft, loss of airspeed data didn't really do all that much to the aircraft. The autopilot might drop out, and the aircraft may give you a warning, but the coughpit isn't likely to be all that noisy a place. But, in the new ones (and I'll use Airbus simply because I'm most familiar with what they will do), there will be multiple alarms, associated with loss of autopilots, auto thrust, flight directors, reversion to alternative flight laws (which totally changes the way the aircraft behaves). The aircraft is quite likely to be out of trim, and because AB only give you pitch trim in direct law, and never give you any ability to trim in roll, you won't be able to do anything about it. Basically the aircraft will revert to a state in which it is surprisingly difficult to fly...but, and I'll emphasise the 'but', it should not be an issue to any properly prepared crew, nor should it result in any flight path deviation.

Would anyone care to drive a motor car that went into "alternate law" if an odometer cable became damaged? For the sake of the hypothetical - alternate law in a car would reverse all the steering/brake/throttle/transmission controls...

 

[jb747]

Would anyone care to drive a motor car that went into "alternate law" if an odometer cable became damaged? For the sake of the hypothetical - alternate law in a car would reverse all the steering/brake/throttle/transmission controls...

No, the reversion to alternate law isn't anything like that (and I would defy anyone to drive what you described). In large part, the aircraft simply decides to fly like any previous, non FBW, aircraft. If you want to use the car analogy, you've lost your stability control and ABS braking, and the steering has switched from variable ratio to constant ratio.

No pilot I've spoken to about this accident can understand the use of all that backstick. It is totally alien to the techniques used in any aircraft. In this instance I don't think it would have mattered what aircraft he was sitting in...

 

[casanovawa]

It seems in trying to make things simple for the pilots they have made it a hell of a lot more complicated???

To be frank i don't get all of this alternate law stuff, its seems laws of motion and gravity and all are pretty constant as should be the way the plane flies.. But obviously somewhere there is a good reason for all of this...

Edit: Ok quickly reading JB's follow up comment maybe the alternate law doesn't change it all from black to white etc...

 

[jb747]

It seems in trying to make things simple for the pilots they have made it a hell of a lot more complicated???

What they seem to have done is built an aircraft that keeps an engineer happy. An engineer who can't actually fly.

To be frank i don't get all of this alternate law stuff, its seems laws of motion and gravity and all are pretty constant as should be the way the plane flies.. But obviously somewhere there is a good reason for all of this...

Alternate (and direct) laws change the way the flight controls behave. Basically, in normal law, if you put the aircraft somewhere, and then let the joystick go, it will stay there. You can't stall the aircraft, and there are pitch and angle of bank limits.

In alternate law, most (but not all) of the protections disappear, and joystick displacement has a direct relationship to the flight controls. Speed and spiral stability are restored (as per a non FBW aircraft). The autopilot and autothrust MIGHT work. Automatic pitch trim still works, but there is no roll trim.

In direct law, there are no protections, although there is a stall warning. This is really no different to the way a 747 flies ALL of the time. No autopilot, flight director or autothrust. Pitch trim is manual, and still no roll trim. In EVERY other aircraft, trim is on the control column...but here is hidden at the back of the console.

 

[eastwest101]

No, the reversion to alternate law isn't anything like that (and I would defy anyone to drive what you described). In large part, the aircraft simply decides to fly like any previous, non FBW, aircraft. If you want to use the car analogy, you've lost your stability control and ABS braking, and the steering has switched from variable ratio to constant ratio.

No pilot I've spoken to about this accident can understand the use of all that backstick. It is totally alien to the techniques used in any aircraft. In this instance I don't think it would have mattered what aircraft he was sitting in...

I take your point on the car analogy JB747, it was a bit cheeky. From what I understand - could all the use of that pilot backstick possibly be a response to erroneous and confusing indicated airspeeds, attitude pitch and roll information? You just answered most of my questions about normal and direct/alternate laws while I was typing them up, thanks.

 

[jb747]

From what I understand - could all the use of that pilot backstick possibly be a response to erroneous and confusing indicated airspeeds, attitude pitch and roll information?

The pitch and roll data was valid, and can be checked simply by a quick glance at the other pilot's PFD and the ISUS. It doesn't really matter what the airspeed says....steep pitch attitudes are NEVER available at altitude. Level changes are done with a pitch change of a couple of degrees, so anything more than that should ring very loud mental alarm bells.

Pitch and roll is all you need to fly the aircraft....airspeed is nice to know, but that's it.

 

[NM]

No pilot I've spoken to about this accident can understand the use of all that backstick. It is totally alien to the techniques used in any aircraft. In this instance I don't think it would have mattered what aircraft he was sitting in...

Perhaps if it was not a side-stick control (i.e. a Boeing style control column), someone else in the coughpit may have noticed the inappropriate control position and said something?

 

[casanovawa]

I would sort of tend to think there is only so many ways to make the nose go up that far eh, and pulling back on the controls would have to be high on the list and if the instruments are saying that is the attitude (and you believe what they are reading) you might ask what is everyone doing??

I guess it just happened all so quickly that there may not have been time for a whole bunch of rational thoughts to take hold... Amazing they crashed from that high in only a couple of minutes...

 

[QF WP]

Mentioned some of the discussions here to my neighbour, currently a Training Captain for VA.

Boy, didn't he have a go at the PF on the alternate law issue and the nose up angle of attack.

He also mentioned that subsequently, Boeing have re-written their manuals - learning from the AF incident. Good to see that !

I'll have to sit down with him over Xmas to understand more about alternate law - he's actually not flying (first time in living memory). He married an FA, but she gave up flying

 

[TonyHancock]

Some may, or may not, find this article interesting. It appeared in the UK Daily Telegraph today and attempts to apportion at least some blame on Airbus.

Air France Flight 447: 'Damn it, we’re going to crash’

With the report into the tragedy of Air France 447 due next month, Airbus’s 'brilliant’ aircraft design may have contributed to one of the world’s worst aviation disasters and the deaths of all 228 onboard.

 

[QF WP]

Interesting reading, both the linked article and the next one (see absolute bottom).

Time to check with my VA Captain next-door neighbour, maybe over a beer

 

[jb747]

An interesting article, but any critism of Airbus will be swept under the carpet. It is an aircraft designed by engineers FOR engineers. No pilot in his right mind would want a system with no control feedback, or 'fixed' thrust levers. Positive comments from tame fanboi pilots are not all that valid.