Maybe they didn't know they were in a stall.
New Wreckage found in AF447 crash
- Thread starter ozziecat35
- Start date
Maybe they didn't know they were in a stall.
smack300
Well-Known Member
FTA: "One of the weird things about this is that the aircraft was definitely stalled, because the crew had had a stall warning, but they were not doing anything to recover from the stall," Learmount said. "It was almost as if they didn't know the aircraft was stalled, because they could have recovered."
Maybe your right. I thought a audible voice starts saying stall though?
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Yeah, the audible voice started saying "stall" the second the airspeed indications became erroneous...when the autopilot disengaged. They were pretty obviously NOT stalled at that time. So. Stall warning activates, you're not stalled. Stall warning continues to activate. Is it "Flying 101" to somehow realize that you are NOW stalled, Professor Flying?
Trip7
Well-Known Member
I think the mission of the investigation will be to find out why the pilots continued to pull up for so long. I know companies have procedures but 40 degrees nose up is alittle extreme. According to the report only airspeed was erroneous. The still had PFD, VSI.
Technically its supposed to be impossible to stall and airbus because the computer will override. I'm guessing that goes away when you lose something like airspeed indication
Technically its supposed to be impossible to stall and airbus because the computer will override. I'm guessing that goes away when you lose something like airspeed indication
BlueMoon
Well-Known Member
It does go away when you lose airspeed data.
Don't fly an airbus, but fly a Embraer product that is FBW. It won't stall as long as the computers are working, but if you lose all airspeed data, those protections go away.
If that happens. Thrust 85 to 89% (at altitude) and 2 to 4 degrees nose up and you will be near level. I would guess that most pilots have some ballpark numbers like that in their head.
seagull
Well-Known Member
I have to agree. This is NOTHING like the Colgan accident. Multiple system failures, we have seen scenarios in other accidents and incidents where you had both overspeed and stall warnings and numerous other warnings all happening at once that the crew had to sort through. This is not a light airplane, or even a small airplane. The comments being made here not only show a lack of understanding of accident investigation, but also a lack of understanding an event like this. While the airplane's basic principles are the same, the information presented to the flight crew is far more complex. It might have been that the crew could have done something different. That is virtually always the case. The question was not that, but whether it is reasonable that they should have done something different.
smack300
Well-Known Member
Did you just call me Professor flying? Dude I was simply asking a question. And it is flying 101 to realize that your stalled.. And its flying 101 to know to recover from a stall you do not pull up.
A150K
Well-Known Member
Here's a question...What would be your response to every warning light possible coming on over a dark ocean in the middle of the night in a fast moving jet?
A150K
Well-Known Member
Are the stall warnings tied to airspeed on the airbus? Must be a bitch when an aircraft enters a turning stall...
smack300
Well-Known Member
I would maintain control. I understand they had a lot going on. Fully understand. I was just asking if there was an audible voice that says stall. And if there was, why would you pull up? And I got some sarcastic answer back which seemed a little bit over the top.
RDoug
Well-Known Member
Have to concur with this as well. As I previously noted: Nighttime; no visual horizon cues; erroneous instrument readings; multiple warnings; strong convective weather with associated turbulence. Yeah, the aircraft could probably be saved. The question is, would it be normally salvageable without the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and while confronted cold with what this crew faced. I'm not convinced anyone could have done better under the circumstances.
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
Well, like everyone else, I don't have a clue, but it sure sounds like it since they were getting stall warnings the second the A/P disconnected...
seagull
Well-Known Member
To those who think that this was an easy situation:
Have you ever flown at altitude in a heavy jet, encountered severe turbulence and NOT had some stick shaker activation? I have seen a stick shaker combined WITH an overspeed warning. If you are above turbulence penetration speed, you need to SLOW to that speed. Now, add in a bunch of other alerts that do not add up, and, oh yes, you have about 2-3 minutes to figure out the correct response before the aircraft becomes uncontrollable. Fly faster, lower the nose into the teeth of the thunderstorm that you are mostly topping, or try to reduce to the correct speed, or....?
Yes,yes, fly attitude, etc., it is easy to throw darts and tell us how YOU (collectively to those posting such things) would not have done the same thing given these circumstances. In previous accident discussions, I have led hundred's of classes through this exercise and showed them why they probably would have done the same thing absent information or training that was not available to them at the time of the accident.
Have you ever flown at altitude in a heavy jet, encountered severe turbulence and NOT had some stick shaker activation? I have seen a stick shaker combined WITH an overspeed warning. If you are above turbulence penetration speed, you need to SLOW to that speed. Now, add in a bunch of other alerts that do not add up, and, oh yes, you have about 2-3 minutes to figure out the correct response before the aircraft becomes uncontrollable. Fly faster, lower the nose into the teeth of the thunderstorm that you are mostly topping, or try to reduce to the correct speed, or....?
Yes,yes, fly attitude, etc., it is easy to throw darts and tell us how YOU (collectively to those posting such things) would not have done the same thing given these circumstances. In previous accident discussions, I have led hundred's of classes through this exercise and showed them why they probably would have done the same thing absent information or training that was not available to them at the time of the accident.
dasleben
That's just, like, your opinion, man
Thank you.
I'm getting really annoyed at reading all the guys saying "But this is Flying 101!" No, it isn't. Thankfully the only time I've seen unreliable airspeed issues is in the sim, but even then, when combined with a number of EICAS messages, possibility of cascading failures, etc., this isn't clear-cut.
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
I don't think you have any idea about how bad it was for them them.
Here is one reason why the PF might have pulled back.
The PNF said: ""so, we’ve lost the speeds" then "alternate law"
We have no idea idea if the PF (The lowest time pilot out of the three) hear him.
Because later in the report there is this:
I would think no pilot would do this if they believed they where in alternate law.
MikeOH58
Well-Known Member
With all due respect, according to your profile you are a student pilot with 10 hours. I think it's safe to say you have no freaking idea how you would respond, nor is it likely you would know how to respond to an airbus in this situation.
Why is it that all the student pilots and guys with no experience are the first to make comments like this?
granlistillo
Well-Known Member
Don't like to read through cat fight threads, but what I have gathered there was enough information to get the plane through until the probes could be de iced. From my back seat experience in the military, I learned the attitude/performance method and later the civilian pilot predominant primary secondary method. Perhaps if they flew attitude and had gouge thrust settings, they might have been able to get through this. You do what your trained, and it sound like they tried to work the problem bravely, but they just didn't know where that relative wind vector was coming from. But none of us were there. I do think take issue with a report that the crew was highly seasoned.
peace
peace
Boris Badenov
Fortis Leader
To be fair, I did the same thing when I was a pup. "I've spent X hours flying airplanes, I know how this crap works". Of course, I didn't say so publically, but maybe that's an internet-phenomenon. Regardless, there but for the grace of God (or Fate, or the Seven Noble Truths, or whatever) go we all. We're not curing cancer, but it's a job, and I think maybe it's ok to talk about what can go wrong. But it's also ok to express to dudes just coming up that it's in their interest to shut the ego down for a second and try to learn instead of expressing their extremely uneducated opinions about how dumb the dead people must have been.
Cliches are cliches for a reason. And the one that I take most to heart with aviation-appliance operation is "You're always learning".