Airbus intercepted by Mirage 2000

[anonymous-user]

I'm sitting in the crew room reading this with a group of ex mil and civ pilots having a laugh at some of your expert assessments of our ability as Airline pilots. cheers guys!

[john_p]

Mojocvh said:

Don't believe me? Well just pull back and ride that sucker down.



[image from pprune discussion]

WTF

Please tell me you are not concluding on the fate of that jet just from the drivel on PPRune

[TVR1]

Chaps,

Perhaps I didn't word a couple of my responses correctly. Hopefully you will forgive me as I have been travelling since Monday and only touched down on Thursday morning, so still a little tired. I certainly didn't intend to either insult civil aviation types or suggest that their airline training is lacking. Nor did I want to suggest I knew more about a business that I am not in,than those that are....although i'm learning, for various reasons. I fully accept that there are different skill sets and pros and cons of both civil pilots compared with ex mil......

I was a nervous flyer until fairly recently, so perhaps i was looking for reassurance? A frightened man grasps at any comfort, yes?. I don't know what changed but very simply I'm not anymore. Perhaps a couple of years watching Airbus a380 being chucked around the sky at Farnborough helped....to see that actually, these aircraft can do some pretty impressive stuff and a bit of turbulence or a slightly steep bank, is nothing to be worried about.

However, no one has been able to disagree that HISTORICALLY, airlines have taken a large number of pilots from the military. HISTORICALLY, certain airlines, ie Cathay/Singapore/various American etc, I believe, did recruit ex mil.... Clearly this isn't so the case any more. I was happy to agree that this is not the case now. 25 years ago,when I first started flying regularly, there was a fair chance that indeed, you would have an ex mil up front and that is why I chose those airlines. I didn't like flying then and in my mind, the extra skill set that I believe ex mil pilots possess,rightly or wrongly,made me more comfortable. I may very well be talking piss...but then I link a report that, whilst not specifically intended to look at recruitment now, does indicate where HISTORICALLY, a large number of American airlines recruited, with statistics...I was asked for 'proof' to back up my 'ridiculous' statements and did so...but conveniently this has been overlooked. So shall we move on? Agree to agree that things have most definately changed, from when I was developing my personal choices about air travel, rather than just calling me an idiot?

[Mojocvh]

john_p said:

Mojocvh said:

Don't believe me? Well just pull back and ride that sucker down.



[image from pprune discussion]

WTF

Please tell me you are not concluding on the fate of that jet just from the drivel on PPRune

Read the latest note from the BEA, whilst NOT a report is `pretty telling, the pf/pnf (from what has been released so far )were totally unable to grasp their situation, remember, as it stands just now, they did have attitude information.

And incidentally that drivel, as you put it, comes from the BEA published information. True with the influx of walts & ms sim pro's it has become difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff on the threads now, but the "ignore" button helps.

[TVR1]

A bit of silence from stovey et al? yeah well.....I was happy to agree that I was perhaps behind the times....but it appears not so far behind...

http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/baweb1/tpl_ba01....

Still talking piss? am I? Airlines don't have a specific preference for ex mil?

No smiley this time.

[TVR1]

Grant76 said:

I'd like to know which airline TVR goes on his holidays with..

As mentioned above, utter drivel.

British Airways next time, it would seem.....or perhaps American Airlines, I can actually look their pilots cv's up.

http://www.linkedin.com/title/pilot/at-american-ai...

Seems to be a bit of a common theme about this lots flight training/history?

[car crazy]

TVR1 said:

thatone1967 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Why?

I was under the impression that they only sent up interceptors for a reason... ie: lost contact with the pilot, and if neccassary, lethal force....

you know there is a thread on pprune about this? Its similar to pistonheads pay per post...but its called pay per pic? Basically, if on an excercise etc the warbird pilot spots a civil aircraft, if he can get a pic of it without the other pilot getting one back, guess who buys the drinks that night. Obviously its a bit more difficult for a 748 to sneak up on a Typhoon/mirage etc...but I understand its double shots if they do. Ever wondered why you ALWAYS see civil avaiation pilots with a camera in the cockpit?

I was on qrf refuelling dutys xmas 1987, two phantoms were scrambled to intercept a russian bear in our airspace. when they got close the russian co-pilot was holding something up so our phantoms navigator zoomed in on it. It was a pic of the phantom pilots wife, just to prove they new our personnel and shifts over xmas

[eharding]

car crazy said:

TVR1 said:

thatone1967 said:

Ginetta G15 Girl said:

Why?

I was under the impression that they only sent up interceptors for a reason... ie: lost contact with the pilot, and if neccassary, lethal force....

you know there is a thread on pprune about this? Its similar to pistonheads pay per post...but its called pay per pic? Basically, if on an excercise etc the warbird pilot spots a civil aircraft, if he can get a pic of it without the other pilot getting one back, guess who buys the drinks that night. Obviously its a bit more difficult for a 748 to sneak up on a Typhoon/mirage etc...but I understand its double shots if they do. Ever wondered why you ALWAYS see civil avaiation pilots with a camera in the cockpit?

I was on qrf refuelling dutys xmas 1987, two phantoms were scrambled to intercept a russian bear in our airspace. when they got close the russian co-pilot was holding something up so our phantoms navigator zoomed in on it. It was a pic of the phantom pilots wife, just to prove they new our personnel and shifts over xmas

The phantom mate should have just held up a picture of Les Dawson, leaving the Bear driver wondering how they'd managed to get a picture of his wife.

[anonymous-user]

TVR1 said:

A bit of silence from stovey et al? yeah well.....I was happy to agree that I was perhaps behind the times....but it appears not so far behind...

http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/baweb1/tpl_ba01....

Still talking piss? am I? Airlines don't have a specific preference for ex mil?

No smiley this time.

BA are recruiting hundreds of non military pilots at the moment too.

All you are doing is continuing to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about this subject.

[TVR1]

el stovey said:

TVR1 said:

A bit of silence from stovey et al? yeah well.....I was happy to agree that I was perhaps behind the times....but it appears not so far behind...

http://www.britishairwaysjobs.com/baweb1/tpl_ba01....

Still talking piss? am I? Airlines don't have a specific preference for ex mil?

No smiley this time.

BA are recruiting hundreds of non military pilots at the moment too.

All you are doing is continuing to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding about this subject.

They may well be but you don't see any fast track chemes for GA flyers? stovey, you are being obtuse. I am sure you are aware that what I have said is in part correct....You're own industry agrees with me. I am happy to accept that things have changed.For some reason you are unable to accept what I have said is also in part, correct i.e. that a number of airlines do value highly the additional skills found in military pilots and make the effort to recruit them. Particularly regarding flying in extreme curcumstances/conditions, they have experience that it is simply not possible to get in a sim or in GA flying. Do you at least agree with that? Or perhaps you would prefer a more recent article...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/...

I suppose that's incorrect too?

[Waynester]

eharding said:

The phantom mate should have just held up a picture of Les Dawson, leaving the Bear driver wondering how they'd managed to get a picture of his wife.

Now that made me laugh..

I am not an 'old pilot, or a bold pilot' in fact I am not even...a pilot. Though with 4 flights in a 'Chippy' back in my ATC days, 1 x AEF & 3 aerobatic flights (withoutpuking ) means i am aware of which end of a plane points forward.

Interesting thread, sometimes heated, normal I think with differing opinions...but I tip my hat to those of you who fly whether commercially or military.

I love all things 'flight', including stories, personal recollections & anything historical.

Never ever to late to learn, even the best keep learning.

[Barletta]

It is another great thread this is why I love ph

[pushthebutton]

TVR1 said:

They may well be but you don't see any fast track chemes for GA flyers? stovey, you are being obtuse. I am sure you are aware that what I have said is in part correct....You're own industry agrees with me. I am happy to accept that things have changed.For some reason you are unable to accept what I have said is also in part, correct i.e. that a number of airlines do value highly the additional skills found in military pilots and make the effort to recruit them. Particularly regarding flying in extreme curcumstances/conditions, they have experience that it is simply not possible to get in a sim or in GA flying. Do you at least agree with that? Or perhaps you would prefer a more recent article...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/aviation/...

I suppose that's incorrect too?

TVR1,

You are being told how it is from somebody within the industry. I understand why you have your preconceptions, but they are not valid and you have been told so very succinctly.

I'm not sure what you mean by fast track schemes for ex-military pilots, but the BA scheme is definitely not that. Any pilot that joins will start at the same point as joiners from any background and will progress in exactly the same way assuming that all hoops are successfully negotiated. Equally, there are similar schemes for pilots from GA backgrounds, although they have been thin on the ground for the last few years. I suspect they will re-appear in the not so distant future.

BA recognises the importance of a wide variety of backgrounds to provide a safe operating environment and that is why they provide 'managed path.' A much larger number of pilots will be joining from non-military backgrounds over the next few years. I've seen excellent pilots from all backgrounds and some not so excellent from BOTH backgrounds. There is no one size fit all approach.

With regard to that article, I assume it's lifted directly from the BEA/Airbus report from the incident? Millions of pounds will be spent to understand the causes and implications of that accident so that the industry can learn. It's still early, but I'll contact BEA and Airbus when their office opens and point them toward theaustralian.com website. It could save precious time and money

It is frankly quite insulting to say that non-military pilots are not as well equipped to handle extreme circumstances and conditions. I can't speak for all airlines, but I have received some excellent training to not only recover from these conditions, but more importantly, to make sure we never get any where bloody near them.

PS. The Thomsonfly wasn't exactly as stated on here and it was Bournemouth...

[TVR1]

pushthebutton said:

It is frankly quite insulting to say that non-military pilots are not as well equipped to handle extreme circumstances and conditions. I can't speak for all airlines, but I have received some excellent training to not only recover from these conditions, but more importantly, to make sure we never get any where bloody near them.

A few chips on a few shoulders here, methinks?

It's not insulting at all. It is simply reality that military pilots are trained to a greater degree at the 'edge of the flying envelope' and that is and was my point. Civilian pilots are more concerned with other things. Yes, you may have had training on stall approach recovery etc but please tell me which airlines routinely train pilots for deep stall recovery ie when the airplane is out of control? Airbus working group recognised this, FAA working group recognised this. And you don't? I guess 'they' are all wrong too?

I'm sure that even you would agree that there is a recognition that automation is causing problems within the airline idustry, to the point that a great many pilots have difficulty 'flying' a modern aircraft, when it all goes tits up. Even the airlines and manufacturers are trying to address this?
Is it not also true that a number of airlines either frown upon or specifically forbid non automated flight? Because that is how they train their pilots.

Sorry but I will stand by my original preference. When it all goes tits up and the flight management computer has given up and said 'over to you', given the choice, I would rather the man upfront has REAL WORLD experience of recovery and this i'm afraid, you are not going to get from a sim.

And regarding the report I quoted? Well, Airbus are probably still up celebrating, knowing at this stage at least, that it didn't seem to be an 'aircraft failure'. So you will probably get them at Toulouse, after all. Cynical, me?

Edited by TVR1 on Wednesday 8th June 12:02

[pushthebutton]

I'm afraid there aren't any chips on either of my shoulders. I'm just trying to correct silly factual inaccuracies which add nothing to the debate.

Whilst trying not to be too patronising, the Air France situation had very little to do with recovering from a deep stall. It appears that at some points they had no information at all. It is not difficult to recover from a deep stall assuming you have enough height and operating instruments. This situation is more about recognising unusual instrument indications and reacting to them. This requires a deep system knowledge and not an ability to recover from a fully developed stall in the traditional sense.

The accident may have highlighted possible flaws in the development and training of airbus control laws and pilot training, but that is for the BEA to decide and not the Australian Herald. And while I'm on that subject, you didn't quite a report mate, it was a newspaper article.

The above is why it is a little bit difficult to read your posts without responding. Your opinions are formed without a reasonable knowledge base which is why some are objecting to them.

There may well be issues highlighted as a result of this incident, but they will not resemble your over simplified view I'm afraid.

Finally, automation has saved far more potentially catastrophic situations than it has created. This has been written numerous times before on here. Aviation, by it's nature, will highlight the areas it think present the greatest threat of danger. The percentage risk that these areas pose is greatly reduced from the same areas going back decades.

I apologise for being argumentative, but your posts are a little bit ill informed and it is difficult to read without responding.

[Grant76]

TVR1 said:

A few chips on a few shoulders here, methinks?

It's not insulting at all. It is simply reality that military pilots are trained to a greater degree at the 'edge of the flying envelope' and that is and was my point. Civilian pilots are more concerned with other things. Yes, you may have had training on stall approach recovery etc but please tell me which airlines routinely train pilots for deep stall recovery ie when the airplane is out of control? Airbus working group recognised this, FAA working group recognised this. And you don't? I guess 'they' are all wrong too?

I'm sure that even you would agree that there is a recognition that automation is causing problems within the airline idustry, to the point that a great many pilots have difficulty 'flying' a modern aircraft, when it all goes tits up. Even the airlines and manufacturers are trying to address this?
Is it not also true that a number of airlines either frown upon or specifically forbid non automated flight? Because that is how they train their pilots.

Sorry but I will stand by my original preference. When it all goes tits up and the flight management computer has given up and said 'over to you', given the choice, I would rather the man upfront has REAL WORLD experience of recovery and this i'm afraid, you are not going to get from a sim.

And regarding the report I quoted? Well, Airbus are probably still up celebrating, knowing at this stage at least, that it didn't seem to be an 'aircraft failure'. So you will probably get them at Toulouse, after all. Cynical, me?

Edited by TVR1 on Wednesday 8th June 12:02

This may be a daft question but....

Would an ex RAF pilot trained in recovery of say a Tornado in "deep stall" be any more capable of recovering a 737 in the same enviroment than a GA pilot trained pilot in the 737?

The GA pilot would have to do the same sim hours for these type of situations as the ex RAF pilot would he not? Now although he may not have much real world experience, neither would the RAF pilot in this type..

[TVR1]

Grant76 said:

This may be a daft question but....

Would an ex RAF pilot trained in recovery of say a Tornado in "deep stall" be any more capable of recovering a 737 in the same enviroment than a GA pilot trained pilot in the 737?

The GA pilot would have to do the same sim hours for these type of situations as the ex RAF pilot would he not? Now although he may not have much real world experience, neither would the RAF pilot in this type..

Quite possibly BUT GA pilots generally are not trained for deep stall recovery (uncontrolled flight)but approach to and entering stall(controlled flight) most certainly. Something that all the various aviation bodies are looking at. Mil pilots ARE trained for uncontrolled flight recovery, as a matter of course, I believe? So yes, under the circumstances you describe, I would have my money on the ex mil chap.

[TVR1]

pushthebutton said:

Whilst trying not to be too patronising, the Air France situation had very little to do with recovering from a deep stall.

You are having a laugh, I hope? Having read the same information that you have available to you at this point in time, it is very clear that AF447 crashed because it entered a deep stall that was not recovered by the pilots in charge. WHY and HOW it got to that point is still open to conjecture. The result isn't.

I understand, from what I have read, that this crash has also re-opened the debate not only on how much automation is too much....but also, is it really sensible for the flight management system to just drop everything in the pilots lap,with no warning, if it can't cope anymore? The pilots of AF447 where put in an appalling situation, pressumably compounded by a lack of experience in these types of events?

I will give you a motoring analogy, who would you feel more comfortable with, driving around the Nurburgring to set a fastet lap? BSM driving instructor with 25 years experience or Stirling Moss?

Edited by TVR1 on Wednesday 8th June 14:08

[pushthebutton]

TVR1 said:

You are having a laugh, I hope? Having read the same information that you have available to you at this point in time, it is very clear that AF447 crashed because it entered a deep stall that was not recovered by the pilots in charge. WHY and HOW it got to that point is still open to conjecture. The result isn't.

I understand, from what I have read, that this crash has also re-opened the debate not only on how much automation is too much....but also, is it really sensible for the flight management system to just drop everything in the pilots lap,with no warning, if it can't cope anymore? The pilots of AF447 where put in an appalling situation, pressumably compounded by a lack of experience in these types of events?

I will give you a motoring analogy, who would you feel more comfortable with, driving around the Nurburgring to set a fastet lap? BSM driving instructor with 25 years experience or Stirling Moss?

Edited by TVR1 on Wednesday 8th June 14:08

Unfortunately not.

The aircraft did not 'just' stall. The pilots were apparently receiving conflicting and sometimes no information as to the aircraft's airspeed due perhaps to pitot icing. If the situation was 'only' a fully developed stall then 33000ft + is more than ample time to recover with nothing more than bruised pride to show for it. Recovery from a stall will require some operating instruments and/or a horizon to help maintain situational awareness and is not difficult from any sensible altitudes.

The real questions here are what, if any, airspeed and altitude indications were the pilots receiving? Did the possibility exist to sort the wheat from the chaff i.e were any set of instruments reading correctly? What control laws was the Airbus operating to during the upset and were the pilots aware of these?

The stall was a secondary result of the instrument malfunction, not the other way around. There are questions that probably need to be asked about this accident, but they're not the ones you're asking I'm afraid.

Edited to add:

With regard to the military pilots being better trained to deal with these types of scenarios, here's a non-exhaustive list of military incidents and accidents from 2000 to present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and...

To flip your argument on it's head, could the differing training that commercial pilots receive have prevented any of the above accidents from happening? I'd argue that it probably could have in a few cases. Does that mean that all military pilots should come from a civilian background and be more trusted as a result?

I'll leave that to you...

Edited by pushthebutton on Wednesday 8th June 16:33

Edited by pushthebutton on Wednesday 8th June 16:34

[Mojocvh]

pushthebutton said:

TVR1 said:

You are having a laugh, I hope? Having read the same information that you have available to you at this point in time, it is very clear that AF447 crashed because it entered a deep stall that was not recovered by the pilots in charge. WHY and HOW it got to that point is still open to conjecture. The result isn't.

I understand, from what I have read, that this crash has also re-opened the debate not only on how much automation is too much....but also, is it really sensible for the flight management system to just drop everything in the pilots lap,with no warning, if it can't cope anymore? The pilots of AF447 where put in an appalling situation, pressumably compounded by a lack of experience in these types of events?

I will give you a motoring analogy, who would you feel more comfortable with, driving around the Nurburgring to set a fastet lap? BSM driving instructor with 25 years experience or Stirling Moss?

Edited by TVR1 on Wednesday 8th June 14:08

Unfortunately not.

The aircraft did not 'just' stall. The pilots were apparently receiving conflicting and sometimes no information as to the aircraft's airspeed due perhaps to pitot icing. If the situation was 'only' a fully developed stall then 33000ft + is more than ample time to recover with nothing more than bruised pride to show for it. Recovery from a stall will require some operating instruments and/or a horizon to help maintain situational awareness and is not difficult from any sensible altitudes.

The real questions here are what, if any, airspeed and altitude indications were the pilots receiving? Did the possibility exist to sort the wheat from the chaff i.e were any set of instruments reading correctly? What control laws was the Airbus operating to during the upset and were the pilots aware of these?

The stall was a secondary result of the instrument malfunction, not the other way around. There are questions that probably need to be asked about this accident, but they're not the ones you're asking I'm afraid.

Edited to add:

With regard to the military pilots being better trained to deal with these types of scenarios, here's a non-exhaustive list of military incidents and accidents from 2000 to present:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and...

To flip your argument on it's head, could the differing training that commercial pilots receive have prevented any of the above accidents from happening? I'd argue that it probably could have in a few cases. Does that mean that all military pilots should come from a civilian background and be more trusted as a result?

I'll leave that to you...

Edited by pushthebutton on Wednesday 8th June 16:33

Edited by pushthebutton on Wednesday 8th June 16:34

http://www.bea.aero/en/enquetes/flight.af.447/info27may2011.en.php

"Faced with the regular disclosure of partial and often approximate information since 16 May, the BEA wished to publish this note so as to inform the families of the victims and the public about the first facts established, based on analysis of the data from the flight recorders, which started on 14 May for the FDR and 15 May for the CVR.

This note describes in a factual manner the chain of events that led to the accident and presents newly established facts. The initial analyses will be developed in a further interim report that is scheduled to be published towards the end of July.

Only after long and detailed investigative work will the causes of the accident be determined and safety recommendations issued, this being the main mission of the BEA. The latter will be included in the final report."

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.e...