AF447 Vanity Fair article

[Boris Badenov]

I guess I just don't see this as a cascading failure that should've caused an accident.

Well, I don't see it as one which should have caused the accident, and it's not quite what I had in mind when I said that we should have more of them (because, duh, you're quite right that it never should have gotten there in the first place). I do maintain, though, that this *type* of failure should be trained more. That is, the failure no one thinks about because, poop, we've had heated pitot tubes on airplanes for half a century, and they don't "just fail". Perhaps not so much because whatever scenario the instructor/panel/whatever comes up with is itself likely to happen, but because it makes us all required to think about the systems, how they work, what they talk to, what the likely response would be, etc etc etc.

And I'm not a "build the airplane" guy at all. What does the needle need to read? Whatever is in front of the green arc. But more generally, I do think we need to know how the damned thing works, and be thinking about it...eh, not "constantly", exactly, but you know, not just be sitting there watching the air go by.

 

[jynxyjoe]

we've had heated pitot tubes on airplanes for half a century, and they don't "just fail".

They do when you're in an eclipse. It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Sorry, had to get a shot in.

 

[Boris Badenov]

The trainer for the 21st century! It's a JEEEEETTTTT, economical to fly, and occasionally, inexplicably, fails catastrophically! It's settled.

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

No argument there. We do try to "mix it up" in recurrent to give crews something a little different every year. But if what you give them is exceedingly unlikely, I promise they will run straight to training standards that we are "unrealistic" and "setting them up for failure."

 

[jynxyjoe]

occasionally, inexplicably, fails catastrophically! It's settled.

Oh, see you're one of those. You see the problem with your type and all the FAA types is you don't understand the Silicon Valley model. Build something like crap then patch it! As long as it sells it's good! Otherwise people wouldn't buy it! FREE MARKETS! CHANGE THE REGULATION! WE NEED SPECIAL ISSUANCE UNDER PART 23 BECAUSE STUFF AND I HAVE LOTS OF SILICON VALLEY MONEY!

--I'm sorry I blacked out in rage again. I think I was channeling those jackasses from ABQ from almost decade ago. How long was I out for? Back to 447

 

[Boris Badenov]

Yeah, hey, I get that, too. It's a fine line, and I doubt very much that there's a way to be on the right side of it all the time. Because (or so I'm told) there's always some guy who needs to show the poor slobs who just want to get through how smart he is...but there are also always the guys who have been checking the boxes and admiring the view for years on end and feel "picked on" if they're expected to, you know, pay attention and God Forbid learn something. We're going to have to be careful or we're going to get in the habit of having good, useful discussions.

 

[jynxyjoe]

We're going to have to be careful or we're going to get in the habit of having good, useful discussions.

This is the internet afterall. It's 7 pages in and no Nazi reference.

Good AQP, and learning from past lessons, I think everyone will win in the future. Now, AQP for everyone, mandate it tomorrow

 

[Boris Badenov]

To be fair, jynxy, I think there are a lot of Eclipses out there flying around on Ferry Permits, so I think the Special Issuance Silicon Valley model has PROVEN ITSELF!

 

[BobDDuck]

Takes a good team a few months to develop and test each phase, but if the airline is willing to devote the resources then the pilots get some real benefit from the lessons.


Typhoonpilot

This is the issue of course. Some places are more willing to spend the time and money on this than are others. A real safety culture and just "checking the box" are very different things.

 

[MikeD]

cascading CRM...

 

[jynxyjoe]

To be fair, jynxy, I think there are a lot of Eclipses out there flying around on Ferry Permits, so I think the Special Issuance Silicon Valley model has PROVEN ITSELF!

Yeah, keep them day VFR. What bothered me is even with the regulation that crap flying around is the best we could do. Not that Eclipse would ever let their paid for politicians let us (Cheney and many others from the other side of the isle), but there should be an abortion clause in Part 23 and 25. If you get to X point, all the airplanes have to be sawed into pieces and then pee'd on by the certification group.

Or some sort of 709 ride for the manufacturing company that applies to their sales/marketing/exec staff. "Sorry you failed, you never get to build an airplane, touch an airplane, draw and airplane, look at an airplane, or talk about airplanes. You now have a restraining order from airplanes (noun pl or singular)."

 

[PhilosopherPilot]

Yeah, hey, I get that, too. It's a fine line, and I doubt very much that there's a way to be on the right side of it all the time. Because (or so I'm told) there's always some guy who needs to show the poor slobs who just want to get through how smart he is...but there are also always the guys who have been checking the boxes and admiring the view for years on end and feel "picked on" if they're expected to, you know, pay attention and God Forbid learn something. We're going to have to be careful or we're going to get in the habit of having good, useful discussions.

I know I'm biased now that I'm in the training side, but I gotta say I'm happy with how we train here. And you rarely if ever read about training on BluePilots. People complain about LOTS of stuff here, but training isn't one of them.

I was involved in this years recurrent build, and it really is built with "what will benefit our crews best" in mind. We tried to build it so that people will learn something, and feel that their 3 days weren't just wasted checking a box.

I'll try to keep the useful discussions to a minimum. That reminds me, I'm far too sober to be on here right now. Scotch anyone?

 

[Boris Badenov]

I'll try to keep the useful discussions to a minimum. That reminds me, I'm far too sober to be on here right now. Scotch anyone?

"But Mr. Hutz, it's 9 o clock in the morning!"

"I haven't slept in days!"

 

[Roger Roger]

This is the issue of course. Some places are more willing to spend the time and money on this than are others. A real safety culture and just "checking the box" are very different things.

Hey, if you throw enough buzzwords and paperwork out there it's guaranteed to increase safety.

 

[Autothrust Blue]

You're ahead of us, then. Nevertheless, I rather suspect that we'd all benefit from a lot more "something is wrong, figure it out" and a lot less "YOU WERE .03 MILES OFF CENTERLINE, BUT GOOD JOB LET'S DO IT AGAIN".

This is AQP, man. Pants are required, but underwear is optional.

In all seriousness, I'm actually rather pleased with my company's training. I can't speak for the CRJ or E75 programs (yet), but I think the Brasilia program is really good. Simulator and line check airmen here tend to have their act together and I get a fair shake and a good workout every year in the sim.

 

[Jimflyfast]

We actually has one phase that ended with holding going into DXB, a fairly common occurrence. .TP

Be the first one to divert to Sharjah. Saved me one night to be the first to call chicken

 

[Baronman]

I hear ya, but in this case if the FO had just reverted to "pitch and power" all would've been fine. The number one rule is to fly the damn airplane. If your airspeed is incorrect, pitch to a reasonable attitude and add/reduce thrust as required. He had good motors. He had good wings and flight controls.

I guess I just don't see this as a cascading failure that should've caused an accident.

I think we all agree pitch and power is a winning combo. Keep in mind power isn't something normally touched at altitude in the Airbus.

The FO had a huge hard on about getting higher. The author clearly points out that at multiple times the FO makes statements about wishing they were higher. At first with the Captain up front and then he tries with the more senior FO. He really thinks an extra 1000' will get them around storms that reach space? Of course his first reaction to getting in a bad situation was to get higher, something he felt would benefit them all along. The one thing it appears he forgot that has been hammered in my head at least is "THE PLANE CAN BE STALLED IN ALTERNATE LAW!"

Another point I agree with the author is wondering why the Captain left right as they approached significant weather. "If you are responsible for the outcome, you do not go on vacation during the main event.”

And finally I don't think anybody yet has mentioned the negative reinforcement the aircraft provided during the failed stall recovery. Every time the stall was broken and the airspeed rose to a feasible value they would get the "STALL" sound. As they got slower and off the airspeed range the Stall warning went away. So...deeper stall = no warning...Breaking the stall = Stall warning.

 

[Jimflyfast]

I think we all agree pitch and power is a winning combo. Keep in mind power isn't something normally touched at altitude in the Airbus.

Nor is pitch

So I wonder how many people realize just how little pitch input it takes to get the response they did when the autopilot disconnected at M.82? trust me, it doesnt take much

 

[C150J]

Regardless of whether or not he "hit the nail on the head," I appreciate the inclusion of engineers into the story. The passage concerning multiple engineers in a room who aren't able to agree on an aircraft's behavior during a specific scenario is eye opening.

To me, this drives home a point a lot of futurists seem to neglect: whether or not there are pilots in the two front seats, aircraft are "human" in the sense that engineers designed them. Someone will always need to oversee how the aircraft is actually behaving versus how it was intended/designed to behave.

 

[Toobdrvr]

I've always had a problem with this story. Hang on to your tinfoil hats:

In many parts of the world, including Europe, accident investigations are criminal investigations. Someone is always at fault. Someone always pays...

Airbus has a nearly spotless record defending their products. It's never their fault. Always those pesky dumb pilots...

For two years, the only evidence available suggested multiple system failures on the aircraft. Then two years TO THE DAY, on a multi-million dollar expedition funded by Airbus, they magically find the recorders at the bottom of the ocean (13,000. No pingers), and VOILA! It was those pesky, dumb pilots.

I've seen some stupid pilot tricks, but this narrative has 3 relatively experienced, professional pilots looking like the Keystone Cops! I'm not buyin' it....



If anything good came from this accident, we did get better training and procedures for unreliable airspeed. Better than "Crosscheck Instruments", DUH!