Chuck Turpen

Flashbangs in the sim!

tripleplay

Shock and surprise! Really! I'm not sure how the French train their pilots but losing reliable airspeed indication should not be so shocking as to result in the loss of a plane load people. Did this guy, Former BEA deputy chief Jean Pariès, ever fly anything other than a desk, Shock and Surprise? I've been surprised many times over the 30 years I've been flying but the training kept the shock in check until after the surprise was dealt with.

A flash bang in the sim...... now that would be shocking! probably resulting in a heart attack for me! LOL! and I'm junior so it wouldn't help anyone.

RANT OFF, over and out!

CloudSailor

Have you ever flown an Airbus with a sidestick and the associated "control-laws"? With heavy pitot-tube icing present, as was the case in the accident, a fly-by-wire sidestick Airbus becomes an interesting machine. Something which, if not seen before, could be very surprising, disorienting and causing "momentary loss of cognitive control as well as resistance to recognising a loss of comprehension".

Not defending the inaction of the pilots, who had 35000'? to figure it out??? Which is why 'momentary' loss of cognitive control should not be used as an explanation for this accident.

After the AF accident, loss of reliable airspeed, an abnormal checklist that was not used during the type rating training on the modern Airbus fleets prior to the accident (due to the multiple redundant systems that would prevent its need -- yeah, we know how that one goes...), became a focus topic. I found the loss of reliable airspeed incredibly bizarre and surprising in that airplane. A few factors that contribute to the strangeness of it are that the thrust levers never move once they're in the detent with the autothrust armed, although obviously the engine instruments show what the autothrust is doing. Likewise, the sidestick never moves to reflect control forces on the aircraft surfaces from the relative wind, it just sits there perfectly centered. If you couple this with extreme super-cooled water icing, night time and IMC, and the degraded scan that evolves from over-reliance on automation, the surprise factor -- for the loss of several thousand feet (not excusing the loss of 35K') can be easily understood by us non-Yeager types... IMHO.

tripleplay

I definitely fall in the non Yeager type category but I guess the whole basic concept of about 3-5 degrees pitch, maintaining altitude with the power up is something any ATP flying in 121 or equivalent ops should have a firm grasp of. I will admit I am glad I wasn't in their shoes on the AF flight. No adrenaline producing moment (emergency) in an airplane is good but it is what we train for.

And no I haven't flown the sidestick controller only the old fashion yoke Airbus. I'll stick to my Boeing products thankyou very much. My brother flys the 320 (he is sitting across from me) and the above concept (pitch and power) is in their QRH and taught. Basics are basics. IMHO

CloudSailor

Very true.

Daniel Larusso

I never found the non moving thrust levers the issue I thought they'd be coming in. If you keep the power in your scan and in the back of your mind like you should in all planes and it's just flying. Truth is not all of us do that and we can see it everyday on planes with moving levers. Those Turkish guys let their 737 AT's put them into the ground on a visual due to a RA fault. I know about one other almost really nasty incident on the 737 at brand X with the AT's as well that got as slow as AF447 before it was recognized. The unreliable airspeed problem seems to be a universal issue. We've has it with the Mad Dog, we know about AF447, a couple of 757's have been lost to it, and I believe their was incident with a Martainar 767 years ago as well. The less we fly these things, the worse it is to. I remember guys who never flew the 320 at altitude acting surprised that it was more sensitive when they put in the same inputs that they did at lower altitudes. That's no different than any other plane, but if you've never done it before trouble hits...

CloudSailor

Agreed. It seems that we are seeing a paradigm shift back towards practicing basic hand flying, after so many of these incidents/accidents that have been a direct result of over-reliance on automation and degraded hand-flying ability.

FOQA data at a previous airline I flew for showed the highest percentage of unstabilized approaches, and other similar concerning problems, on flights in which, after cleared for the visual approach, all automation was disconnected.

The good news is, across the industry, FOM's are changing back to "staying proficient in hand-flying skills", and getting away from "the highest level of automation at all times".

As tripleplay said it, basics are basics. But, like everything, you still need to practice the basics for them to remain "basic".

Huck

I'm sure everybody knows the various pitch angles and power settings of their aircraft, right?

I flew with an old B-47 guy in a King Aire long ago. He wouldn't let me fly with pax aboard until I could give him pitch and power settings for cruise, approach and landing configuration.

Sounds old fashioned but definitely would have saved some lives at Air France....

iarapilot

The upset recovery booklet they gave us Airbus guys a few years ago was a pretty good review, although overkill. It gets back to basic hood flying and unusual attitude recovery. Just remember what the primary instruments are for the regime of flight and you should be OK. Forget all those fancy CRT's!

hyperone

Popular Mechanics had a very detailed article with a good analysis of the major issues concerning the AF447 mishap.
Air France 447 Flight-Data Recorder Transcript - What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447 - Popular Mechanics