http://www.businessinsider.com/air-france-447-damn-it-were-going-to-crash-2012-5

 

 

Very sad. I was horrified when I saw this on the news in 2009. Especially in Brazil, this was big deal.

Nothing said in that article hasn't been said on these forums by a few folks and myself. There will always be those of us who believe the current sidestick/FBW is a death trap in certain scenarios.

 

Thanks for the link!

I am guessing that if the sidestick on both sides were in sync and held position such as pitch then this disaster would not have happened. Having said that if the pilots were trained better they should have noticed the HSI and known they were in a climb the entire time. As with all aviation disasters, it is usually numeraous factors that come together to create disaster.

I'll just quote the comment made on that article by "Pilot Error"on May 1, 12:07 PM

It's all very well blaming the Airbus design for this, but what on Earth was a pilot doing pulling back on the joystick (and holding it there) when there was a stall warning??

It's all very well blaming the Airbus design for this, but what on Earth was a pilot doing pulling back on the joystick (and holding it there) when there was a stall warning??

 

You answered your own question, didn't you? An Airbus in "Normal Law" will fly itself out of a stall while yanking back on the stick in TOGA.

Surely it will fly itself out of a stall even better if you push the joystick forward?

Surely it will fly itself out of a stall even better if you push the joystick forward?

 

Okay. Now we're going in circles. Did you understand my post? The point was to convey the short comings of being too reliant on FBW.

It would seem that the pilots didn't understand what was meant by "Alternate Law" They did identify the loss of AIS information, but they acted incorrectly. Instead of immediately flying attitude / thrust they stalled the a/c. Thereafter nobody seemed to put two and two together by looking at the instruments and realising what was actually happening.

Also what may have confused the crew was that the stall warning went off and on due to it being "outside the parameters" probably because when they designed the systems they didn't expect the a/c to be put to such extremes.

 

 

vololiberista

Add to the fact that the PNF cannot see what the PF is doing (like you can on a Boeing).

 

It's natural reaction to want to pull back when you stall (look at the Colgan Air Q400 crash near KBUF for another recent example) but dammit if I didn't think an AFR A330 crew would fall victim to this. It's easy to second guess a crew sitting here at the comfort of my desk, not in the dark, warnings galore and with everything at stake.....my heart goes out to all those on board.

That Telegraph article has not once mentioned the obvious regarding the pitot tubes which apparently iced up----their heaters, which a BBC or C4 documentary,---- cannot remember precisely which,---- did analyse and theorise that these heaters had failed because of the level of ice in those storm clouds, thus leading to false signals being sent to the flight deck.

It is mentioned in the story linked there. Regardless of the situation, the PF should not have stalled the airplane (as also mentioned in the story and the BBC docu). They have procedures to follow for just such a case that clearly were not followed.

 

As I said though, easy for us to sit here at our desks and say that when we are not in the heat of the battle.

 

I was blown away by the super cooling demo on the BBC doc, where they put the metal tip in the jug of water and it instantly turns into a block of ice.

You answered your own question, didn't you? An Airbus in "Normal Law" will fly itself out of a stall while yanking back on the stick in TOGA.

They were actually in "alternate law" after the AP dropped out. So they the crew were flying the a/c not the computer.

 

That Telegraph article has not once mentioned the obvious regarding the pitot tubes which apparently iced up----their heaters, which a BBC or C4 documentary,---- cannot remember precisely which,---- did analyse and theorise that these heaters had failed because of the level of ice in those storm clouds, thus leading to false signals being sent to the flight deck.

Frankly although the pitot tubes icing over initiated the event they were not the cause. The crew did not react to loss of AIS information by flying attitude / thrust. This is standard training and practice for loss of AIS info. And is something learnt even at PPL training levels.

vololiberista

People just love to bash Airbus when they have a chance. Thing is, it's the most advanced company right now and their aircraft are masterpieces. This is so true that many companies are replacing their Boeing fleet with Buses.

 

I see nothing wrong with that, all we want is less fuel consumption and more security. The Airfrance disaster was clearly pilot misjudgement while on an emergency situation - They just couldn't handle it.