Article: What really happened on Air France 447

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fair enough.

Question: how far down is F/CTL ALTN LAW (PROT LOST) in the message stack?

Honestly it's been a few month since I've been in the sim so I can't comment exactly how deep in the stack it would be. I looked it up and it appears near (if not at) the top however I suppose it is dependent on what other conditions are present.

As you mentioned, "USE MAN PITCH TRIM" is present in Alternate Law/Direct Law. Amber X's also replace the green attitude limit marks that would normally appear on the PFD when flying in Alternate Law or Direct Law providing another indicator.
 
Un-freakin believable. Another airline crash because no one knows how to recover from a stall. This just seems so absurd.
 
With alternate law you still have some protections. Load factor and speed protections are still there. But and a big but it can be overridden by sidestick input. In other words if you get too fast or slow the plane will adjust pitch to correct itself if you put no input on the sidestick. But if you keep pushing the sidestick forward or aft the plane will continue on it's path. You absolutely lose pitch, bank and high AOA protection in alternate law. Then there are other factors that could happen but would take very long to explain.
 
The common theme between this, the Colgan crash in BUF, the CRJ crash in LEX, the CRJ crash over MO (and PLENTY of others): inexperience.
 
The common theme between this, the Colgan crash in BUF, the CRJ crash in LEX, the CRJ crash over MO (and PLENTY of others): inexperience.

That is weak and you know it. A lot of very experience pilots have put good air planes in the ground here is three from just AA.
AA 587
AA 1420
AA 965
 
Un-freakin believable. Another airline crash because no one knows how to recover from a stall. This just seems so absurd.

This statement does no justice to what's really going on, and thus does not help at all. I've heard it several times, not just from you.

It's ridiculous to even think that someone who gets that far in this career would "not know how to recover from a stall." Thus, I don't believe that any of the people involved actually did not know...

So, if we run with that assumption we can examine this and make real progress in trying to prevent it from happening again... Or we can go with the 20 second sound bite, hang it all on the "incompetent pilot" and go about our business not having learned a damned thing.
 
This statement does no justice to what's really going on....

It's ridiculous to even think that someone who gets that far in this career would "not know how to recover from a stall." Thus, I don't believe that any of the people involved actually did not know...


Jetcareers - Aug 2011


AP IMPACT: Automation in the air dulls pilot skill

http://forums.jetcareers.com/general-topics/127292-airline-pilots-forget-how-fly.html




FAA study finds pilots rely on automated systems too much: report

BY CORKY SIEMASZKO
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER
Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Planes these days are so automated that pilots are beginning to forget the thing that got them into the cockpit in the first place - how to fly.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-08-30/news/30114046_1_sullenberger-plane-pilots


 
The common theme between this, the Colgan crash in BUF, the CRJ crash in LEX, the CRJ crash over MO (and PLENTY of others): inexperience.
Upsets happen to everyone. As Gonzo pointed out, American's had three of them, and those folks are all QUITE experienced.

The CRJ accidents to which you refer were caused by a lack of professionalism and discipline. Neither of those were upsets. Professionalism and experience are not necessarily related.

Un-freakin believable. Another airline crash because no one knows how to recover from a stall. This just seems so absurd.
Gross oversimplification.

Tell you what, I'll go ahead and throw you in an Airbus A330 over the North Atlantic at night with 60,000-foot-tall thunderstorms with no air data information and some subtle flight control degradations, and we'll see just how well you do.

With alternate law you still have some protections. Load factor and speed protections are still there. But and a big but it can be overridden by sidestick input. In other words if you get too fast or slow the plane will adjust pitch to correct itself if you put no input on the sidestick. But if you keep pushing the sidestick forward or aft the plane will continue on it's path. You absolutely lose pitch, bank and high AOA protection in alternate law. Then there are other factors that could happen but would take very long to explain.
So, "keep pulling and it will stall."

Whereas, in 99.9% of flight operations if you keep pulling nothing bad happens (yay Alpha Floor/Prot/Max/whatever it's called).

Hmm, there's a slight difference in interface there.
 
The common theme between this, the Colgan crash in BUF, the CRJ crash in LEX, the CRJ crash over MO (and PLENTY of others): inexperience.

Un-freakin believable. Another airline crash because no one knows how to recover from a stall. This just seems so absurd.


It seems that there is authoritative support for your positions. .

I don't see this problem as much in pilots with glider, bush pilot or military training. . They know how to "fly." . (Sully Sullenberger was ex-military and is a current glider pilot. . The Naval and AF Academies have both started glider programs.) . But I do see it increasingly in civie pilots trained in the last decade or two. . It's not their fault. . It's the FAA and the avionic mfgr. lobby's fault. . They wrote the current standards, and told students they were "trained to fly." .

[video=youtube;jd4H2IQfZ8g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd4H2IQfZ8g[/video]


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWHwQfVYlS4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKE5J9e4qW4&feature=player_detailpage#t=47s Sullenberger on Air France 447

.

 
Here's a very simple way "alternate" and "normal" law on the Airbus was described to me.

Normal law: Stick full aft, max performance climb. Speed protection.

Alternate law: Stick full aft, plane pitches up. No speed protection.

If you assume the aircraft is in "normal" law, but the malfunction has placed the aircraft in "alternate" law, you're no longer flying an Airbus, you're flying a Cessna 172. But you have to absolutely know what set of rules you're playing under.

Caveat: I have no Airbus time and just parroting what an Airbus pilot told me.
 
Gross oversimplification.

Tell you what, I'll go ahead and throw you in an Airbus A330 over the North Atlantic at night with 60,000-foot-tall thunderstorms with no air data information and some subtle flight control degradations, and we'll see just how well you do.

Bingo! +1
 
Two separate issues being discussed, or so it seems to me.

1) Should these guys be condemned as "bad pilots" for crashing? Dunno, insufficient information.
2) Is there a serious degradation of basic attitude flying/stick and rudder skills becoming apparent? Sure seems like it to me.
 
Two separate issues being discussed, or so it seems to me.

1) Should these guys be condemned as "bad pilots" for crashing? Dunno, insufficient information.
2) Is there a serious degradation of basic attitude flying/stick and rudder skills becoming apparent? Sure seems like it to me.

That's because that, as a community, we've failed to adjust to the new reality that is now upon us. In some very fundamental ways, flying an MU-2 with round dials, single pilot in the crap is great experience, but a fundamentally different job than flying an A330.

We are lead astray that because they are both airplanes, and because they both transport things from A to B that the jobs are exactly the same, and the skillsets should be the same, and a determine of competence would be the same. Truth be told, at a previous job, if I couldn't hand fly a single engine partial panel NDB approach to minimums, and then do the published missed then I was not only inept, but dangerous. Now being about to do stuff like that is more "gee whiz" and a whole lot less applicable to normal, or even abnormal operations.

Modern airliners, and many modern corporate jets, are about systems management, and that includes automation management. And all the things that kill pilots in round dial airplanes STILL kill people in automated airplanes, but there are some additional things to look for. While you don't need to be able to crosscheck your instruments to make sure your AI isn't rolling over on you because of an unannunciated system failure, you've reasonably got bigger problems that are possibly even more subtle when the automation doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Cross checking is important, sure, but most of the time the aircraft will SCREAM at you that the data you're looking at is wrong. If it doesn't, it's no different than a graveyard spiral that a non instrument rated private pilot finds themselves in when they get into IMC.

The problem is not a lack of experience, or a lack of training. The problem is us, and our unwillingness to let go of how we were used to do things, and get on board with how things are done now. Whether that's a good thing or not is another debate, and whether you should be able to turn the automation off is another one. But in some aircraft, and in some situations, you simply can't, and lambasting a pilot for getting gigged by the things that gig them in their airplane, because it wouldn't happen in your airplane, is disingenuous.
 
Who's lambasting? I think I just said that I have no idea whether they were incompetent or just unlucky.

That said, I've flown automated jets, too, and the sort of skills I'm talking about not only transfer, but are 100% necessary in both. And they're disappearing. I've flown with F/Os who were better with the FMS than I am, but can't seem to land in the first 2000ft or in a crosswind of more than 10 knots without dropping the masks.
 
Who's lambasting? I think I just said that I have no idea whether they were incompetent or just unlucky.

Take a look around the thread, it's happening (not saying you, I'm saying it's happening).

That said, I've flown automated jets, too, and the sort of skills I'm talking about not only transfer, but are 100% necessary in both. And they're disappearing. I've flown with F/Os who were better with the FMS than I am, but can't seem to land in the first 2000ft or in a crosswind of more than 10 knots without dropping the masks.

Could you turn off ALL the automation in your aircraft and still have it keep flying? I mean all the electronics, disconnect the batteries, all the gens, everything and you still have pitch, roll, yaw and power control? Because you can in mine, but in some aircraft, you can't. That ADG doesn't work and you're a paperweight with wings.
 
That's because that, as a community, we've failed to adjust to the new reality that is now upon us. In some very fundamental ways, flying an MU-2 with round dials, single pilot in the crap is great experience, but a fundamentally different job than flying an A330.

Fundamentally, it is the same. Now is the job different, sure, but the fundamentals are still there or should be.

We are lead astray that because they are both airplanes, and because they both transport things from A to B that the jobs are exactly the same, and the skillsets should be the same, and a determine of competence would be the same. Truth be told, at a previous job, if I couldn't hand fly a single engine partial panel NDB approach to minimums, and then do the published missed then I was not only inept, but dangerous. Now being about to do stuff like that is more "gee whiz" and a whole lot less applicable to normal, or even abnormal operations.

That's an issue with the training department.

Modern airliners, and many modern corporate jets, are about systems management, and that includes automation management. And all the things that kill pilots in round dial airplanes STILL kill people in automated airplanes, but there are some additional things to look for. While you don't need to be able to crosscheck your instruments to make sure your AI isn't rolling over on you because of an unannunciated system failure, you've reasonably got bigger problems that are possibly even more subtle when the automation doesn't do what it's supposed to do. Cross checking is important, sure, but most of the time the aircraft will SCREAM at you that the data you're looking at is wrong. If it doesn't, it's no different than a graveyard spiral that a non instrument rated private pilot finds themselves in when they get into IMC.

The problem is not a lack of experience, or a lack of training.

This can be said with a straight face?

The problem is us, and our unwillingness to let go of how we were used to do things, and get on board with how things are done now.

​Lets ask the Colgan training department how that went.

Whether that's a good thing or not is another debate, and whether you should be able to turn the automation off is another one. But in some aircraft, and in some situations, you simply can't, and lambasting a pilot for getting gigged by the things that gig them in their airplane, because it wouldn't happen in your airplane, is disingenuous.

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've seen in a long time...congrats.
 
Id recommend some of you check out http://www.airbusdriver.net/

Look for the link at the top right side of the page that says "Airbus Info", then select "Flight Control Laws." This will give you a pretty good idea as to the flight control laws and protection systems.

For the record, I fly the A330.
 
(not saying you, I'm saying it's happening).

Well, you quoted me, so I'm the one who responded.

Could you turn off ALL the automation in your aircraft and still have it keep flying? I mean all the electronics, disconnect the batteries, all the gens, everything and you still have pitch, roll, yaw and power control? Because you can in mine, but in some aircraft, you can't. That ADG doesn't work and you're a paperweight with wings.

Yes, you could. I'm sure that the systems in the Airbus are vastly more complex than anything I've flown or am likely to fly any time soon. I don't see what this has to do with lack of basic flying skills. I'd prefer to separate the discussions (as mentioned above), but if you're determined to talk about the Air France crash in this context, what does your hypothetical situation have to do with it? I don't think anyone disputes that they had power throughout the accident sequence. In fact, if the article is to be believed, they even had airspeed information most of the way down.

The way I read your missive, flying a Big Jeeeettttttt is so vastly different from flying anything else that there is no transfer of knowledge from flying anything else. That seems patently false to me, but then, I haven't flown one, so round and round we go.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top