I think there'd need to be a lot more evidence to back up the suicide theory.

 

Ró, did Aer Lingus do training regarding manual handling at high altitude/cruise before AF447?

As for whether you fly with them or not, while I don't want to paint all of their pilots with the same brush, I certainly think they're training department has massive scope for improvement.

 

Ró.

 

You are right of course, it's a perception, it has no real basis in fact, This incident has made me very nervous about flying, at first because they thought turbulence brought down the plane, like BOAC 911; now because it seems that the PF made an error most simulator pilots would know not to make. A lot of the incidents Air France have had appears to be pilot error (AF358, and AF422).

Still, i know this is completely wrong on an intellectual and factual level; i like to hear a British or German voice coming from the flight deck, for whatever reason it makes me feel better.

Ró, did Aer Lingus do training regarding manual handling at high altitude/cruise before AF447?

 

Sorry for the delay, work called... :Waiting:

Yup, we always have. Stalls, manual flight in Normal Law, and manual flight in Alternate Law, all at high altitude, all practiced since at least when I started on the A330, so that was '94. We also practiced high altitude stalls in our B737 classics as well, so that's back as far as at least 1989 if not earlier . Not sure how many others used practice it before AF447, I know EIN is know for it's over the top sim training, but I'm pretty sure that at least some other airlines probably practiced some of this stuff as well...

 

Rónán O Cadhain.

Not over the top at all given AF447!

I am not sure that the PF even realised that he had the controls hard back, they had completely lost awareness, both the PF and PNF were out of there depth, confused, and i dare say scared.

 

Read the transcript. Near the end, he said he'd had the stick back the whole time. From the context, he seemed to think it puzzling that this hadn't made the aircraft climb.

Read the transcript. Near the end, he said he'd had the stick back the whole time. From the context, he seemed to think it puzzling that this hadn't made the aircraft climb.

He had the stick fully back, the engines at TOGo and didn't notice that the rate of descent indicator was going merriliy in the opposite direction! "Hang on chaps, maybe what I'm doing isn't working!". The Captain came back into the cockpit and also didn't perform a correct annalysis of the instruments. The stall warning was going off. which all three of them totally ignored. I personally think that the stall warning on that a/c should be modified to be something more strident and attention getting! It's extremely rare for a stall warning to be erroneous. They had plenty of height to react to it..................oh! the list goes on. That plane was effectively being flown by untrained individuals.

Read the transcript. Near the end, he said he'd had the stick back the whole time. From the context, he seemed to think it puzzling that this hadn't made the aircraft climb.

 

I have read the edited transcript thank you.

 

Yes i know, my thoughts are at that point he was again conscious of the fact, but the whole event was filled with an almost unbelievable level of incoherency and errors. Things start badly and quickly go down hill, as a passenger the whole event is very worrying, it has put me off flying, at the very least made me apprehensive.

I have read the edited transcript thank you.

 

Yes i know, my thoughts are at that point he was again conscious of the fact, but the whole event was filled with an almost unbelievable level of incoherency and errors. Things start badly and quickly go down hill, as a passenger the whole event is very worrying, it has put me off flying, at the very least made me apprehensive.

It shouldn't put you off flying though, any more than a report of a bus crash with multiple fatalities caused by driver incompetence should put you off travelling by road. It might discourage travelling by Air France, if it's true that their ongoing pilots' simulator practice is poor.

 

Disasters are very, very rare, given the vast number of commercial aircraft in the air at any point in time.

 

Have a look here: http://www.flightradar24.com/

Disasters are very, very rare, given the vast number of commercial aircraft in the air at any point in time.

 

Actually there are two statistics regarding air travel, the number of accidents per billion miles travelled (the airline favourite quote), that would make air travel the safest form of travel. Curiously the second type of statistic per billion journeys, this makes airline travel the 3rd most dangerous form of travel after cycling and motorbiking...why curious you ask, well bus / coach travel is the safest form of travel using this set of statistics by quite some way.

 

I still fly, i just don't enjoy it any more, it used to be that i loved flying, the holiday started at the airport, not now though...thanks Air France! :mad:

I thought that the report said that the stall warning was only on intermittently, based on those graphs...

 

Not that out should be an excuse, but I'm not sure that the crew realized they were in a very deep stall because there was no alarm.

 

You could see that there was a small amount of nose down input each time the alarm went off followed by immediate nose up input, followed by the alarm turning off. It just made no sense, it's like they stopped scanning the instruments.

 

What I am not clear on is how much instrumentation was lost.

Actually there are two statistics regarding air travel, the number of accidents per billion miles travelled (the airline favourite quote), that would make air travel the safest form of travel. Curiously the second type of statistic per billion journeys, this makes airline travel the 3rd most dangerous form of travel after cycling and motorbiking...why curious you ask, well bus / coach travel is the safest form of travel using this set of statistics by quite some way.

 

I still fly, i just don't enjoy it any more, it used to be that i loved flying, the holiday started at the airport, not now though...thanks Air France! :mad:

Yes, they like to quote deaths per passenger-mile, which does favour fast transport over slow. I reckon the space shuttle is probably the absolute 'safest' form of transport using that measure..

I thought that the report said that the stall warning was only on intermittently, based on those graphs...

 

Not that out should be an excuse, but I'm not sure that the crew realized they were in a very deep stall because there was no alarm.

 

You could see that there was a small amount of nose down input each time the alarm went off followed by immediate nose up input, followed by the alarm turning off. It just made no sense, it's like they stopped scanning the instruments.

 

What I am not clear on is how much instrumentation was lost.

Only a temporary AIS loss.

 

I reckon the space shuttle is probably the absolute 'safest' form of transport using that measure..

 

Really??!!

1. Let's send them into space even though it's "frozen " to the pad!

2. "We think there's a hole in the wing". "No problem we'll sort it out when/if they land"

Both those accidents were due to a cavalier attitude towards the safety of the crew

The astronauts did not actually have a very high opinion of the Shuttle.

Really??!!

1. Let's send them into space even though it's "frozen " to the pad!

2. "We think there's a hole in the wing". "No problem we'll sort it out when/if they land"

Both those accidents were due to a cavalier attitude towards the safety of the crew

The astronauts did not actually have a very high opinion of the Shuttle.

 

My comment as to it being 'safest' was meant ironically..my point was that the deaths per passenger-mile statistic unfairly favours fast transport.

Only a temporary AIS loss.

 

I think the report suggested more instrumentation was disabled about 1-2 minutes into the event, but I couldn't interpret that part of the report very well as I am not familiar with the panels. I assume that they had some basic functions such as vertical speed, airspeed, altitude, attitude, heading. But I'm not 100% certain that they did have these displayed all the way down. It sounds odd from a backup point of view.

 

Edit: I just double checked and saw that they have this instrument called the ISIS that should have provided a lot of the basic information they required.

PFD, ND, ISIS etc we're all working perfectly except intermittent unreliable airspeed. It should be noted the right side PFD was not recorded on the FDR so no one knows for sure what exactly he was seeing.

 

I've always wondered why the pilot in the left seat switched the right PFD to ATT, it actually made the situation worse however the only reason you would do that is if you thought that PFD was completely screwed.