What happened to Air France Flight 447

[pushthebutton]

Simpo Two said:

Without checking - Manchester?

I think Kegworth was 1989. Wasn't Manchester 1985 (if we're thinking about the same one?) If we are, the Captain was on my flight a few months ago.

[richie slow]

I've read all of this thread (amongst other information too) and it probably boils down to the fact that poor CRM caused this accident. It's like the Papa India accident only in slow motion. Blaming individuals is wrong, it's the cockpit culture that failed them.

Interesting reading though.

[Mr Dave]

Just to ask this again

Why did the aircraft not revert back from "alternate law" when the pitots started working again and started picking up proper airspeed data?

Would that have stopped it from stalling even with the stick back?

[Simpo Two]

Mr Dave said:

Just to ask this again

Why did the aircraft not revert back from "alternate law" when the pitots started working again and started picking up proper airspeed data?

Would that have stopped it from stalling even with the stick back?

Perhaps if the aircraft had done a proper old-school stall - wooo -ve G - it might have given them a clue as to what was going on!

Autopilot disengaged automatically but I deduce doesn't re-enagage automatically. That would need someone to think 'Let's switch the autopilot back on'. Would that have saved them I wonder?

[nightflight]

I'm not even going to get involved in the military versus civil pilot discussion. I've spent too much time in bars around the world discussing this one. Both make mistakes.
On the Sully scenario, yes he did a great job. I've done the same in the sim, and if you turn back straight away, you can get back to the airfield. The main reason they all survived is that this happened in the middle of a city, with all the rescue services on hand. If this had happened mid ocean, it would have been a different story. Also, part of the ditching drill is to select the ditching button. From what I understand, this was not done, which is why the aircraft was filling with water. Oh no, an ex military pilot forgot to do part of a drill!

[paddyhasneeds]

nightflight said:

Also, part of the ditching drill is to select the ditching button. From what I understand, this was not done, which is why the aircraft was filling with water. Oh no, an ex military pilot forgot to do part of a drill!

I don't believe that's true.

IIRC the "ditching" checklist was written with a lot more height and time in mind, so they didn't forget it, they were still on page 1 or whatever of a multi-page checklist when they hit.

[CarbonM5]

nightflight said:

I'm not even going to get involved in the military versus civil pilot discussion. I've spent too much time in bars around the world discussing this one. Both make mistakes.
On the Sully scenario, yes he did a great job. I've done the same in the sim, and if you turn back straight away, you can get back to the airfield. The main reason they all survived is that this happened in the middle of a city, with all the rescue services on hand. If this had happened mid ocean, it would have been a different story. Also, part of the ditching drill is to select the ditching button. From what I understand, this was not done, which is why the aircraft was filling with water. Oh no, an ex military pilot forgot to do part of a drill!

Funnily enough I also picked up on the non use of the 'ditch' function which closes off all the out flow valves ect.

Those itvv dvd's were good!

[pushthebutton]

paddyhasneeds said:

nightflight said:

Also, part of the ditching drill is to select the ditching button. From what I understand, this was not done, which is why the aircraft was filling with water. Oh no, an ex military pilot forgot to do part of a drill!

I don't believe that's true.

IIRC the "ditching" checklist was written with a lot more height and time in mind, so they didn't forget it, they were still on page 1 or whatever of a multi-page checklist when they hit.

Nothing productive to add, but the FO was doing the drills so it was his checklist.

Exactly right that the checklist was written with more time in mind. I think that there is some value not only in having good knowledge of the checklists, but also knowing what they are trying to achieve and where shortcuts exist if time is a factor. That type of thinking can only be done ahead of time.

I think that with the time the crew had Jeff Skiles prioritised the path of the aircraft over the remainder of the checklist. That makes sense to me.

[dazco]

When the captain finally approached the cabin, would he not have noticed he was walking uphill?

[Simpo Two]

dazco said:

When the captain finally approached the cabin, would he not have noticed he was walking uphill?

Hmm, good question.

I flew gliders where the yaw indicator was a bit of string sellotaped onto the canopy. So maybe a plumbline hanging from the cockpit ceiling...?

[MitchT]

dazco said:

When the captain finally approached the cabin, would he not have noticed he was walking uphill?

I was wondering this too. Also, in the event of all of their fancy technology getting in a flap, surely a simple spirit level type device in the cockpit would have indicated the angle of the plane?

[ETOPS]

MitchT said:

I was wondering this too. Also, in the event of all of their fancy technology getting in a flap, surely a simple spirit level type device in the cockpit would have indicated the angle of the plane?

Hard to imagine that an add-on spirit level would've helped. They had a very clear, large, bright and functioning primary instrument telling them the aircraft attitude.

[bennyboydurham]

nightflight said:

Also, part of the ditching drill is to select the ditching button. From what I understand, this was not done, which is why the aircraft was filling with water. Oh no, an ex military pilot forgot to do part of a drill!

It wouldn't have made any difference as the hull was punctured when it touched down anyway, letting the water pour in, iirc.

[MitchT]

ETOPS said:

Hard to imagine that an add-on spirit level would've helped. They had a very clear, large, bright and functioning primary instrument telling them the aircraft attitude.

I wasn't meaning the altitude, more the angle of the plane. If the nose was pointing up then a spirit level would have indicated this reliably in the event of their instruments becoming untrustworthy. There was clearly some confusion as to whether the plane was pointing up or down but a spirit level mounted longitudinally within the cockpit would have left the crew in no doubt whatsoever. The problem with this obsession with high-technology which modern aircraft/car/etc. manufacturers have is that it results in sophisticated and potentially fragile computerised systems replacing simple and virtually fail-safe mechanical ones.

[Ian Lancs]

MitchT said:

ETOPS said:

Hard to imagine that an add-on spirit level would've helped. They had a very clear, large, bright and functioning primary instrument telling them the aircraft attitude.

I wasn't meaning the altitude, more the angle of the plane. If the nose was pointing up then a spirit level would have indicated this reliably in the event of their instruments becoming untrustworthy. There was clearly some confusion as to whether the plane was pointing up or down but a spirit level mounted longitudinally within the cockpit would have left the crew in no doubt whatsoever. The problem with this obsession with high-technology which modern aircraft/car/etc. manufacturers have is that it results in sophisticated and potentially fragile computerised systems replacing simple and virtually fail-safe mechanical ones.

[Simpo Two]

MitchT said:

I wasn't meaning the altitude, more the angle of the plane. If the nose was pointing up then a spirit level would have indicated this reliably in the event of their instruments becoming untrustworthy. There was clearly some confusion as to whether the plane was pointing up or down but a spirit level mounted longitudinally within the cockpit would have left the crew in no doubt whatsoever. The problem with this obsession with high-technology which modern aircraft/car/etc. manufacturers have is that it results in sophisticated and potentially fragile computerised systems replacing simple and virtually fail-safe mechanical ones.

He said 'attitude'. And yes, I agree with you.

To the pilots here - if you were blind-flying a WW2 bomber straight and level at cruising altitude and the ASI conked out, would you lose orientation and crash like Air France did, or concentrate a bit harder at the remaining instruments and carry on flying relatively normally until the ASI came back?

[c7xlg]

MitchT,
I'm guessing you don't know that much about aircraft.... there is something called an 'articifical horizon' that tells you the aircraft's ATTITUDE (which isn't how high or grumpy it is feeling). In addition there is an AngleOfAttack (AoA) indicator that helps tell you if you are about to stall (very very simplistically). All civil transports have 'manual' back-ups to these in case the fancy electrickery fails.

There is no indication that any of these failed in AF447 (though the AoA represntation on the primary display might have given some funny readings for a while when the pitot was frozen up).

[Simpo Two]

c7xlg said:

MitchT,
I'm guessing you don't know that much about aircraft.... there is something called an 'articifical horizon' that tells you the aircraft's ATTITUDE (which isn't how high or grumpy it is feeling). In addition there is an AngleOfAttack (AoA) indicator that helps tell you if you are about to stall (very very simplistically). All civil transports have 'manual' back-ups to these in case the fancy electrickery fails.

There is no indication that any of these failed in AF447 (though the AoA represntation on the primary display might have given some funny readings for a while when the pitot was frozen up).

Absolutely. All it needed was a crew that would look at and take heed of them.

[pushthebutton]

Simpo Two said:

c7xlg said:

MitchT,
I'm guessing you don't know that much about aircraft.... there is something called an 'articifical horizon' that tells you the aircraft's ATTITUDE (which isn't how high or grumpy it is feeling). In addition there is an AngleOfAttack (AoA) indicator that helps tell you if you are about to stall (very very simplistically). All civil transports have 'manual' back-ups to these in case the fancy electrickery fails.

There is no indication that any of these failed in AF447 (though the AoA represntation on the primary display might have given some funny readings for a while when the pitot was frozen up).

Absolutely. All it needed was a crew that would look at and take heed of them.

That's the drill.

I believe that it's a more natural response for most Boeing pilots due to all raw data flying being based around pitch and power. I don't think that it is quite so instinctive for Airbus guys, but I'm happy to be corrected. Regarding Airbus flying I've no experience so I've reached my level of incompetence in that respect.

[Chuck328]

pushthebutton said:

Simpo Two said:

c7xlg said:

MitchT,
I'm guessing you don't know that much about aircraft.... there is something called an 'articifical horizon' that tells you the aircraft's ATTITUDE (which isn't how high or grumpy it is feeling). In addition there is an AngleOfAttack (AoA) indicator that helps tell you if you are about to stall (very very simplistically). All civil transports have 'manual' back-ups to these in case the fancy electrickery fails.

There is no indication that any of these failed in AF447 (though the AoA represntation on the primary display might have given some funny readings for a while when the pitot was frozen up).

Absolutely. All it needed was a crew that would look at and take heed of them.

That's the drill.

I believe that it's a more natural response for most Boeing pilots due to all raw data flying being based around pitch and power. I don't think that it is quite so instinctive for Airbus guys, but I'm happy to be corrected. Regarding Airbus flying I've no experience so I've reached my level of incompetence in that respect.

^^^Mostly correct. ^^^

You don't get AoA info on the Airbus unless you set the systems to do so (by this I refer to the Back Up Speed Scale). Unless anyone wants further info, I aint going into specifics about this (AoA can also be derived from the MCDU but this is not a pilot function, rather a monitoring function).

All civil transports do have manual back up, however these days they are electronic (displays) and in the case of the Airbus, basic for flight control (rudder and pitch trim wheel).

HTH.