What happened to Air France Flight 447
Discussion
Just back from my six month recurrent in the sim. Did high altitude (350) stall recovery. Pretty much a non event. A/C put into alternate law, closed the thrust levers and let the speed wash off. I let it get to about 180kts indicated. Quite a bit faster than 447. Pitched the nose down to about five to ten degrees, left the thrust at zero and waited for the speed to build to about 240kts, pitched back up and brought the power up (slowly). We lost a few thousand feet. Oh and those bloody E slots in the sim meant it was done at about 2am.
However, although non event as we were ready for it and all the instruments were working correctly. Such a shame that chap just didn't shove the nose down, and tell the other to bring up and GPS page for a ground speed readout.
AndyACB said:
nightflight
Whats your view of the Captain electing to take his rest when he did?
Probably not appropriate, but I don't know what the company policy would be on allocating in flight rest periods. In my company, we don't have a separate rest area. The third pilot takes his rest on the jump seat, so that scenario would not arise in our operation. It would appear, but I don't know because I wasn't there, that they were not aware of the weather system that killed them. This should have been shown on their weather pack before departure. Was this checked? Who knows? Possibly the first mistake of the night. If the Captain was aware, then surely he would have insisted on a different route, something I have done on many occasions. I doubt very much if he would have left the flight deck, leaving two first officers to fly the aircraft, if he was aware of the weather system. We weren't there, so we don't know what was checked and what wasn't. As in nearly all disasters, there is a chain of events. The way to prevent an accident, is to spot that chain and break it. They got into a bad situation, for whatever reason, and it would have been a very frightening environment.Whats your view of the Captain electing to take his rest when he did?
stevensdrs said:
My experience of the French in business makes it easy to understand how this terrible situation could arise.
I have found the French to be incredibly stubborn and not receptive to basic common sense solutions particularly in stress situations. The pilot Bonin did exactly the opposite of what he should have done by pulling the stick back and then having made his irrational decision, stayed with it despite all the evidence from working instrumentation until very close to the end. If you want something f
d up, put the French in charge.
You might even say that of their power station, IF you could find the "truth".I have found the French to be incredibly stubborn and not receptive to basic common sense solutions particularly in stress situations. The pilot Bonin did exactly the opposite of what he should have done by pulling the stick back and then having made his irrational decision, stayed with it despite all the evidence from working instrumentation until very close to the end. If you want something f
d up, put the French in charge.AndyACB said:
Not sure how he's going to get his airspeed figure out from the GPS ground speed when in turbulence at high altitude.
He'll look at the screen with the GPS groundspeed showing and if he's got a rough idea of the wind velocity, it'll give him an idea of his airspeed. Yes, it will be inaccurate (possibly very) but it's better than nothing and it will likely be close enough to give you a good clue.Having said that, all you need to fly an airliner (or any aircraft for that matter) is the correct power setting and the correct attitude. You don't need an ASI. Yes, we'd very much like to have one and luckily for us, the manufacturers generally fit them
but there are tables in the QRH of all airliners which detail the attitudes and power settings required for certain speeds at certain weights and altitudes.AndyACB said:
Not sure how he's going to get his airspeed figure out from the GPS ground speed when in turbulence at high altitude.
On might argue that bringing up the GPS speed (I don't know if they actually did) might have saved them. The low ground speed indicated would be a glaring indication of stall. It's also Airbus standard operating procedure to bring that page up during unreliable speed problems. (Roughly 100kts indicated at 37000ft/-56 degrees temp is about 185 kts true airspeed - TOO SLOW!)
Veru interesting read, and, as has been said above, very easy to judge the situation when you're not there. I know nothing about flying, but am aware that pulling up the nose, at altitude, with no increase in thrust, is only going to end one way.
But as has been pointed out, it's all in the timings. While I have no aircraft/flight experience, I know from my short commision in the RN, and some years of sailing small craft since, that hours of inactivity can suddenly become seconds of exteme urgerncy, with little or no warning.
But as has been pointed out, it's all in the timings. While I have no aircraft/flight experience, I know from my short commision in the RN, and some years of sailing small craft since, that hours of inactivity can suddenly become seconds of exteme urgerncy, with little or no warning.
Penguinracer said:
A quick question - those of you who fly whether professionally or recreationally - surely in your training you practiced partial panel circuits where the ASI was covered from roll on take-off until being stationary after landing - indeed surely you had partial panel competitions in your light aircraft flying days? Unusual attitude training under the hood - like partial panel circuits - basic PPL fare where I come from.
In CRM terms - the words "I have control" when uttered by the more experienced of two pilots to the lesser must be uttered with gravitas & authority - it's a command not a question or a suggestion.
Many of these F***ups come back to an unbroken chain of events in which first principles - aherence to the basics could have salvaged the situation.
Good question - yes I've done partial panel flying, with the ASI covered, or the AI & turn coordinator covered, etc. but you have to understand that it's one thing to have the thing covered and QUITE another to have it visible but showing inaccurate information. If the thing is covered well you just don't see it, no big deal you can fly using your other instruments with a bit of work. But having to decide which of your instruments is wrong and after being trained to trust, trust your instruments is not fun, especially in solid clouds. In CRM terms - the words "I have control" when uttered by the more experienced of two pilots to the lesser must be uttered with gravitas & authority - it's a command not a question or a suggestion.
Many of these F***ups come back to an unbroken chain of events in which first principles - aherence to the basics could have salvaged the situation.
And that is with a 'six-pack' of instruments. On an A330 your instruments are integrated into one display, so it is even harder to 'ignore' the ASI since it is right there in your field of vision.
I'm no Airbus pilot, but it's my understanding that in 'normal law' the stall recovery action is to pull back on the side-stick, is this correct? If so that might explain to some extent why the F/O was pulling back instead of nosing over like you'd expect any pilot to do.
As to the person saying they should have been 'well-rested'...that's the biggest joke of the industry, although it's not really a joke in the funny sense. Crews fly fatigued all the time! Have you ever worked a 12+hr day and then had 9 hours of 'rest' (i.e. 9hrs from when the aircraft parked at the gate to the next morning when you have to be back at the aircraft, the time it takes to wait for a hotel shuttle, check-in, shower, etc. is included in that) and then worked a 6 flight, 14 hour day? And that's just the first 2 days of your trip!
Chuck328 said:
Just back from my six month recurrent in the sim. Did high altitude (350) stall recovery. Pretty much a non event. A/C put into alternate law, closed the thrust levers and let the speed wash off. I let it get to about 180kts indicated. Quite a bit faster than 447. Pitched the nose down to about five to ten degrees, left the thrust at zero and waited for the speed to build to about 240kts, pitched back up and brought the power up (slowly). We lost a few thousand feet. Oh and those bloody E slots in the sim meant it was done at about 2am.
However, although non event as we were ready for it and all the instruments were working correctly. Such a shame that chap just didn't shove the nose down, and tell the other to bring up and GPS page for a ground speed readout.
Mind if I ask, were you expecting it?However, although non event as we were ready for it and all the instruments were working correctly. Such a shame that chap just didn't shove the nose down, and tell the other to bring up and GPS page for a ground speed readout.
Chuck328 said:
On might argue that bringing up the GPS speed (I don't know if they actually did) might have saved them. The low ground speed indicated would be a glaring indication of stall. It's also Airbus standard operating procedure to bring that page up during unreliable speed problems. (Roughly 100kts indicated at 37000ft/-56 degrees temp is about 185 kts true airspeed - TOO SLOW!)
I didn't know that selecting GPS speed was an Airbus standard operating procedure for unreliable airspeed problems. How close is this figure to the GS displayed on the PFD? I assume that GS becomes unreliable in extreme turbulence too?Interesting stuff on this thread, I spend 70% of my working days repairing Airbus aircraft but we don't really know the ins and outs of the operating procedures the pilots use.
p.s. Where do you select the GPS speed reading? On the MCDU?
Edit - just looked at the A320 QRH - all it says is GS variation can provide valuable short term information at low altitude. No mention of GPS. Was this changed after AF447? I'm still struggling to see how GPS speed could have helped in this situation as it's totally unrelated to the actual airspeed of the aircraft.
Edited by AndyACB on Friday 9th December 17:28
CelicaGT said:
Good question - yes I've done partial panel flying, with the ASI covered, or the AI & turn coordinator covered, etc. but you have to understand that it's one thing to have the thing covered and QUITE another to have it visible but showing inaccurate information. If the thing is covered well you just don't see it, no big deal you can fly using your other instruments with a bit of work. But having to decide which of your instruments is wrong and after being trained to trust, trust your instruments is not fun, especially in solid clouds.
And that is with a 'six-pack' of instruments. On an A330 your instruments are integrated into one display, so it is even harder to 'ignore' the ASI since it is right there in your field of vision.
I'm no Airbus pilot, but it's my understanding that in 'normal law' the stall recovery action is to pull back on the side-stick, is this correct? If so that might explain to some extent why the F/O was pulling back instead of nosing over like you'd expect any pilot to do.
As to the person saying they should have been 'well-rested'...that's the biggest joke of the industry, although it's not really a joke in the funny sense. Crews fly fatigued all the time! Have you ever worked a 12+hr day and then had 9 hours of 'rest' (i.e. 9hrs from when the aircraft parked at the gate to the next morning when you have to be back at the aircraft, the time it takes to wait for a hotel shuttle, check-in, shower, etc. is included in that) and then worked a 6 flight, 14 hour day? And that's just the first 2 days of your trip!
No it's not. In normal law, if you do hold the stick back, and get near to a stall, the aircraft will automatically lower the nose in order to prevent a stall. It will do this even with the autopilot disconnected. The stall recovery in an Airbus is no different to any other aircraft. Why this guy was holding the stick back, I have no idea.And that is with a 'six-pack' of instruments. On an A330 your instruments are integrated into one display, so it is even harder to 'ignore' the ASI since it is right there in your field of vision.
I'm no Airbus pilot, but it's my understanding that in 'normal law' the stall recovery action is to pull back on the side-stick, is this correct? If so that might explain to some extent why the F/O was pulling back instead of nosing over like you'd expect any pilot to do.
As to the person saying they should have been 'well-rested'...that's the biggest joke of the industry, although it's not really a joke in the funny sense. Crews fly fatigued all the time! Have you ever worked a 12+hr day and then had 9 hours of 'rest' (i.e. 9hrs from when the aircraft parked at the gate to the next morning when you have to be back at the aircraft, the time it takes to wait for a hotel shuttle, check-in, shower, etc. is included in that) and then worked a 6 flight, 14 hour day? And that's just the first 2 days of your trip!
Mattt said:
When you do Sim sessions, does it not reduce the lesson if you are pre-briefed about the incident/flight you're going to do?
I would've thought it would be more useful to retry this situation 'blind' (as you can reasonably get) and then see how people behave?
I thought that too. Hardly a fair comparison!I would've thought it would be more useful to retry this situation 'blind' (as you can reasonably get) and then see how people behave?
paddyhasneeds said:
Mind if I ask, were you expecting it?
Yes, it's briefed before hand in the class room, more about this in a mo..AndyACB said:
I didn't know that selecting GPS speed was an Airbus standard operating procedure for unreliable airspeed problems. How close is this figure to the GS displayed on the PFD? I assume that GS becomes unreliable in extreme turbulence too?
As mentioned already, The GPS speed is the same as you would have in your car, how fast you are going over the ground. It's usually within a few kts of the PFD speed. Turbulence will have little effect on GS per-say, it will always show how fast you're travelling over the ground. Edited by AndyACB on Friday 9th December 17:28
AndyACB said:
Interesting stuff on this thread, I spend 70% of my working days repairing Airbus aircraft but we don't really know the ins and outs of the operating procedures the pilots use.
p.s. Where do you select the GPS speed reading? On the MCDU?
Correct, On the Data page.p.s. Where do you select the GPS speed reading? On the MCDU?
Edited by AndyACB on Friday 9th December 17:28
AndyACB said:
Edit - just looked at the A320 QRH - all it says is GS variation can provide valuable short term information at low altitude. No mention of GPS. Was this changed after AF447? I'm still struggling to see how GPS speed could have helped in this situation as it's totally unrelated to the actual airspeed of the aircraft.
Have a read on down the page in the QRH you were looking at. You are correct again, "GPS Altitude............... Display on MCDU"Edited by AndyACB on Friday 9th December 17:28
Further down the page,
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS:
Respect Stall Warning
To monitor speed, refer to IRS Ground Speed, or GPS Ground Speed variations.
From my QRH I have here.
Mattt said:
When you do Sim sessions, does it not reduce the lesson if you are pre-briefed about the incident/flight you're going to do?
I would've thought it would be more useful to retry this situation 'blind' (as you can reasonably get) and then see how people behave?
Whilst there is an element of licencing renewal requirements, much of what we do is training. Out of all the warnings and alerts that the Bus or any aircraft can put out these days, we only get to practice this stuff once every six months. It's not a lot really, ergo you are given a heads up on what to expect. I do take your point though...I would've thought it would be more useful to retry this situation 'blind' (as you can reasonably get) and then see how people behave?
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff