French passenger jet gone missing from radar screens........
Discussion
Steameh said:
Not sure I necessarily agree with that, even if he had obscured the view, wouldn't the vertical horizon would still show the nose high situation? Which all crew members would have been able to see.
The vertical horizon is meaningless when the plane is level but falling out of the sky. davepoth said:
Steameh said:
Not sure I necessarily agree with that, even if he had obscured the view, wouldn't the vertical horizon would still show the nose high situation? Which all crew members would have been able to see.
The vertical horizon is meaningless when the plane is level but falling out of the sky. 
fido said:
Ian Lancs said:
Isn't there a vertical speed indicator / rate of climb indicator?
I thought the VSI was driven off the pitot sensors, which were not working properly in this case.
Not sure if their is a standbye analogue vsi on the flying panel or if there is a synthesised display for one driven by the AIDRU's of whatever.
If these "experts" are so sure that the sidesticks are responsible then why aren't there airbusses falling out of the sky more often
A total red herring from someone looking for [another] paycheck imo.
Edited by Mojocvh on Saturday 28th April 16:32
Mojocvh said:
fido said:
Ian Lancs said:
Isn't there a vertical speed indicator / rate of climb indicator?
I thought the VSI was driven off the pitot sensors, which were not working properly in this case.Not sure if their is a standbye analogue vsi on the flying panel or if there is a synthesised display for one driven by the AIDRU's of whatever.
If these "experts" are so sure that the sidesticks are responsible then why aren't there airbusses falling out of the sky more often
A total red herring from someone looking for [another] paycheck imo.
I wouldn't be surprised if the article was written by the Boeing press office - A v B seems to be a very set in stone "war"
DieselGriff said:
(I know your reply was tongue in cheek).
Indeed. Can't imagine a more horrible situation to be in. A complete lack of knowledge of speed, altitude, pitch, spatial awareness etc along with warning alarms going off left right and centre must have been horrific 
Edited by B17NNS on Saturday 28th April 16:41
DieselGriff said:
B17NNS said:
Do none of these pilots watch aircrash investigation?
Flaps to 15 and get the nose down to recover the stall.
Easy peasy.
I think the issue (or at least one of them) was that they didn't know for certain they were in a stall. (I know your reply was tongue in cheek).Flaps to 15 and get the nose down to recover the stall.
Easy peasy.
Besides [tech flying bit ok] when you say "you have control" it's generally considered good form to stop putting in your inputs into the flying control [ex air cadet see] and not keep a subtle nose up input as the other guy tries to save everyone's lives.
[irony moment ok]
I really can't see what is so difficult about being trained and being proficient in your aircraft's systems.
{funnily enough in my "new" career, I've seen an individual become so fixated and totally lose their SA that despite positive replies to challenges he still pursued his course of action. Despite handing over control, he managed to mince the other two members of his team [self and one other] not once but twice in the hub of a turbine. Good job it was in a simulator in Germany, but the debrief was quite frank [think dodge ball/wrenches
] and that's before the instructors could get to him!!}B17NNS said:
DieselGriff said:
(I know your reply was tongue in cheek).
Indeed. Can't imagine a more horrible situation to be in. A complete lack of knowledge of speed, altitude, pitch, spatial awareness etc along with warning alarms going off left right and centre must have been horrific Edited by B17NNS on Saturday 28th April 16:41
Imagine what it was like in the back, sure they'd have guessed it wasn't flying straight and level! Horrendous!!!
Mojocvh said:
DieselGriff said:
B17NNS said:
Do none of these pilots watch aircrash investigation?
Flaps to 15 and get the nose down to recover the stall.
Easy peasy.
I think the issue (or at least one of them) was that they didn't know for certain they were in a stall. (I know your reply was tongue in cheek).Flaps to 15 and get the nose down to recover the stall.
Easy peasy.
Besides [tech flying bit ok] when you say "you have control" it's generally considered good form to stop putting in your inputs into the flying control [ex air cadet see] and not keep a subtle nose up input as the other guy tries to save everyone's lives.
[irony moment ok]
I really can't see what is so difficult about being trained and being proficient in your aircraft's systems.
Ian Lancs said:
From what I remember of the accident report, it would appear that the 2 on the flight deck flying did exactly that. Only when the senior captain entered the deck did he (eventually) realise what was going on, but by then they were already way too close to the sea to pull up and recover
...or, as I remember, point the nose down, get some speed up and start 'flying'.MercScot said:
Whatever anyone says, it does seem obvious this was serious pilot error, did they face any more of a challenge than Eric Moody? Somehow I doubt it.
(For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
(For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
Moody's (not that he was even in the flight deck when the engines stopped) situation was much more straight forward. All the crew had to do was descend at a safe speed and keep trying to relight the engines.
The air france crash was a much more confusing situation. They had an aircraft in bad weather with unreliable instruments and stall warning systems telling the pilots conflicting information that couldn't clearly indicate to them whether the aircraft was stalled or not. What's the point in a warning system if THREE pilots can't easily understand what's going on? That's very poor design.
MercScot said:
Whatever anyone says, it does seem obvious this was serious pilot error, did they face any more of a challenge than Eric Moody? Somehow I doubt it.
(For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
Probably not, but the crucial difference is that Eric Moody realised what was going on and reacted appropriately. (For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
el stovey said:
MercScot said:
Whatever anyone says, it does seem obvious this was serious pilot error, did they face any more of a challenge than Eric Moody? Somehow I doubt it.
(For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
(For those of you who are much younger than me and have no idea who Eric Moody is, Google his name and/or BA flight 9)
Moody's (not that he was even in the flight deck when the engines stopped) situation was much more straight forward. All the crew had to do was descend at a safe speed and keep trying to relight the engines.
The air france crash was a much more confusing situation. They had an aircraft in bad weather with unreliable instruments and stall warning systems telling the pilots conflicting information that couldn't clearly indicate to them whether the aircraft was stalled or not. What's the point in a warning system if THREE pilots can't easily understand what's going on? That's very poor design.
ALawson said:
That was covered on TV ages ago. Nothing new there.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff