Thread: Air France crash investigation

I've aleays assumed that the guys up in the cockpit have been trained to fly the plane, but some of the details coming out of the investigation into the 2009 Air France crash in the Atlantic would seem to say otherwise. The report is not stating "pilot error" as the cause of the crash, but it does sound like these guys just did not know what to do.

Apparently when the auto-pilot disengaged and the stall warnings went apeshit...the first co-pilot took over control and pointed the nose upwards when he should have in fact pointed it downwards....it was all downhill from there on.

The BEA's findings raised worrisome questions about the reactions of the cockpit crew — two co-pilots — as the A330 went into an aerodynamic stall and their ability to fly the A330 manually as the autopilot disengaged. The report expressed broader concern about the state of training of today's pilots flying high-tech planes when confronted with a high-altitude crisis.

BEA officials said they are bringing together a bevy of experts, from psychologists to physiologists, to try to reconstitute the scene from the crews' point of view — the human factor which could include potential disorientation. Those findings would be included in the final report expected early next year.

Many of the crews' actions "seem contrary to logic and we're seeking rational explanations," chief BEA investigator Alain Bouillard told a news conference, adding that the cockpit crew even seemed unaware the plane had gone into an aerodynamic stall.

"We understood how the accident came about," Bouillard said. "Now we must learn why it came about."

Friday's 117-page report, based on a full reading and analysis of the flight and data recorders dredged from the ocean depths, recommends mandatory training for all pilots to help them fly planes manually and recover from a high-altitude stall.

What an excellent idea....pilot training!!!

^ Ya gotta shake your head in disbelief...

The prick who crashed Concorde was a useless French twat who couldn't fly for shit as well.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

The prick who crashed Concorde was a useless French twat who couldn't fly for shit as well.

You saying Frogs should not fly planes?....

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

The prick who crashed Concorde was a useless French twat who couldn't fly for shit as well.

You saying Frogs should not fly planes?....

Pretty much.

They've repeatedly shown that their driving/piloting skills are on par with South East Asians.

Fokers can't even speak English, how do you expect them to fly planes?

Originally Posted by Smug Farang Bore

Fokers can't even speak English, how do you expect them to fly planes?

Pretty sure all Airbus models come with multi-lingual instructions... and a very simplified French section...

Steve Martin...gotta laugh...one of his routines..."Those French...they have a different word for everything!"

There was also this crash landing / skidding in Toronto in 2005: Air France Flight 358 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This crash was on Air Crash Investigation last week.

This is the very reason why alcohol and xanex should be abused prior to and during any flight..

Originally Posted by somtamslap

This is the very reason why alcohol and xanex should be abused prior to and during any flight..

Like the French pilots do

Originally Posted by natalie8

There was also this crash landing / skidding in Toronto in 2005: Air France Flight 358 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This crash was on Air Crash Investigation last week.

Another one due to pilot error.

Pilots can't be blamed when the indicators are not giving accurate info to flight control computers from garbage data caused by frozen pitot tubes. ( Air- speed sensors )
The law of computers: Garbage In, Garbage Out
Add a plane that, IMO is over computerized - pilots cannot fly it on their own and you get perfectly good planes falling from the sky.

Have ALL the freezing- prone pitot tubes been replaced on the A 320 as I believe the Air France crews, among others were demanding shortly after the crash ?

This forum is for professional pilots and crews with a lot of informed opinion and speculation but can get very techie.

AF447 wreckage found - Page 128 - PPRuNe Forums

AF 447 Thread No. 5 - PPRuNe Forums

And this, User DozyWannaBe, Post number 2529 about over reliance on computerized flight surfaces.

"- the complaint has always been about *tactile* feedback. The thing is that tactile feedback used to serve multiple purposes when controls were directly connected to flight surfaces - you could feel how the surfaces were responding, you could feel what the other pilot was doing and assist if necessary (indeed you could also put more welly behind the maneouvre). But in todays modern world of hydraulically-controlled surfaces with no manual reversion you're down to being able to feel the other guys inputs, plus whatever the q-feel system is telling you. In a lot of cases this is nothing to be sneezed at, but in some cases it can give a false impression of having an effect on the flightpath when in fact you are not. UA232 was an exemplary display of CRM and aircraft control, but one of the interesting factors was the captain and co-pilot forcing their yokes forward and to the left, long after it was obvious that it was having absolutely no effect.

Airbus's philosophy was based on the idea that when going by the book, only one pilot should be manipulating the flight controls at any one time *except for extraneous circumstances* in which they designed the sidesticks to act in the same manner as the yoke, but by summing the inputs algebraically rather than by respective force. Backdrive was considered and ruled out because it added extra weight and complexity (complexity being the main issue), as well as causing extra problems in the event of systems failure or maintenance errors (e.g a cross-wired sidestick on one side).

Quote:
Still the bus does have some good points like terrain escape which in my opinion is better than any Boeing, 777 included.
As always, there are usually positives and negatives to any differences in design philosophy, and to say that one is objectively better than another in all aspects is not only foolish, but tiresome after a while. "

There has also been cases where the computer has been right and the Pilots wrong and disorientated, and where a crash could have been avoided if the Pilots had trusted their instruments instead of their perception of the physics, in fact I think that despite this very sad unfortunate accident there is a general consensus that the computers are right much more often than the Pilots, and part of their training is "if in doubt trust your instruments first"

^ Agree and believe this is how they got in trouble, the instruments were not giving correct info to the computer which was then going by set parameters which the pilot training does not, could not cover.

So when the instruments are wrong, it's dark with no VFR, blaming the pilots isn't an answer.

That thread on PPRuNe is one of five , hundreds of pages to find it , but the first actions when this crash ocurred were many AF planes had those tubes replaced.

Shoulda Coulda Woulda..

Does it not seem like they did a sort of scuttling crab descent all the way down?
Controlled Flight into Terrain. CFiT belly flop on water at approx 100 kts ?
I bet the tail section did hit first , shearing off thus the earlier scenario of it falling off in mid flight.

The 3rd interim report states the root cause as pitot icing and addresses lack of training and experience in unknown situation.
[ Big download PDF]
Newer pilots are getting the training needed to help them in unknown situations.


http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2009/f-cp...90601e3.en.pdf


447 Thread number 5 pages 74- on have very good discussion
AF 447 Thread No. 5 - Page 74 - PPRuNe Forums

Originally Posted by thailazer

You can tell a lot from VSI and the altimeter to sort things out without any airspeed data.

You must realize indicators were not giving valid numbers as they were in a stall.
remember, a Cessna used for recreational training or flyer tests has mechanical readouts. I can't say how different it is for you to have the instructor at your side, and the scenario of 447 at 35,000 in the dark at .5 mach with bad readings.

Summary from Interim report # 3

On 31 May 2009, flight AF447 took off from Rio de Janeiro Galeão airport bound for Paris
Charles de Gaulle. The airplane was in contact with the Brazilian ATLANTICO ATC on the
INTOL – SALPU – ORARO - TASIL route at FL350. At around 2 h 02, the Captain left the
cockpit. At around 2 h 08, the crew made a course change of about ten degrees to the left,
probably to avoid echoes detected by the weather radar.
At 2 h 10 min 05, likely following the obstruction of the Pitot probes in an ice crystal
environment, the speed indications became erroneous and the automatic systems
disconnected. The airplane’s flight path was not brought under control by the two copilots,
who were rejoined shortly after by the Captain.

Oh Oh ,
CVR trans clearly indicates many instruments were giving false readings. The plane was in an unrecognized stall, static pressure in the tubes disrupted, the warning turning on and off in a seemingly random manner.

Have the tubes been changes is what I want to know before I get in a A 340 entering an area with icing.

From the report it seems pilots only get a minimal of unusual attitude training and that is done with instruments fully functioning.

Originally Posted by KAPPA

it seems pilots only get a minimal of unusual attitude training and that is done with instruments fully functioning

One would think that the training would include "some problems", multiple scenarios, as well as a fully functional flight deck, but maybe not.

Originally Posted by KAPPA

Have the tubes been changes

I cant seem to find this piece of information when I look for a flight from Skyscanner. You can find the "passenger deaths/Km flown" tables though which may help you choose an airline