Search
Notices
Safety Accidents, suggestions on improving safety, etc

AF 447 article

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 12-12-2011, 05:54 PM
  #21  
Gets Weekends Off
 
USMCFLYR's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: FAA 'Flight Check'
Posts: 13,837
Default

Originally Posted by jungle View Post
All modern airliners have an AOA system(usually two), but the output is usually integrated into the FCC, the pilot gets no direct AOA readout.

AF 447 was a case of three pilots flying a perfectly(or at least fully functional) good aircraft into the water.

High altitude stalls in a heavy are an entirely different animal than the low level stalls used in type ratings, much lower available thrust and if the A/P disconnects at a relatively high speed you might be left with limited control authority that requires trimming. It seems that this is finally being addressed in training.
And that is what I liked......a direct readout. A gauge or a number on the HUD/EFIS/etc. Just doing the winds ear/CFIT recoveries in the might radar equipped and pressurized King Air would have been better if I had had a reference to pull too!

Not knowing if the PF was still pulling back on the stick would have been easy to tell with some direct feedback of Alpha as FastDEW points out.

USMCFLYR
USMCFLYR is offline  
Old 12-12-2011, 06:08 PM
  #22  
With The Resistance
 
jungle's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Burning the Agitprop of the Apparat
Posts: 6,191
Default

Originally Posted by USMCFLYR View Post
And that is what I liked......a direct readout. A gauge or a number on the HUD/EFIS/etc. Just doing the winds ear/CFIT recoveries in the might radar equipped and pressurized King Air would have been better if I had had a reference to pull too!

Not knowing if the PF was still pulling back on the stick would have been easy to tell with some direct feedback of Alpha as FastDEW points out.

USMCFLYR
I agree, but once they got the pitot system thawed out they had everything they needed right in front of them. Including a flight director telling them where to put the nose, based on both AOA and airspeed.

I think the temporary loss of airspeed got them into a mode of thinking that later caused them to disregard all of their instruments. A direct AOA readout would certainly help with a loss of airspeed indication, the 330 apparently had a problem/AD on the pitot heat system. A very rare failure, almost unheard of in aircraft with triple redundant pitot systems.

I have had two complete pitot/static failures, both in military jets, AOA and attitude instruments saved the day with very little ruffle.






July 2009, Airbus issued new advice to A330 and A340 operators to exchange Thales pitot tubes for tubes from Goodrich Sensors and Integrated Systems.[152][153][154]

On 12 August 2009, Airbus issued three Mandatory Service Bulletins, requiring that all A330 and A340 aircraft be fitted with two pitot tubes manufactured by Goodrich Sensors and one Thales model BA pitot (or alternatively three of the Goodrich pitots); Thales model AA pitot tubes were no longer to be used.[155] This requirement was incorporated into Airworthiness Directives issued by the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) on 31 August[155] and by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 3 September.[156] The replacement was to be completed by January 7, 2010. According to the FAA, in its Federal Register publication, use of the Thales model has resulted in "reports of airspeed indication discrepancies while flying at high altitudes in inclement weather conditions", that "could result in reduced control of the airplane." The FAA further stated that the Thales model probe "has not yet demonstrated the same level of robustness to withstand high-altitude ice crystals as Goodrich pitot probes P/N 0851HL,".

On 21 December 2010, Airbus issued a warning to roughly 100 operators of A330, A340-200 and A340-300 aircraft, regarding pitot tubes, advising pilots not to re-engage the autopilot following failure of the airspeed indicators
wiki

Last edited by jungle; 12-12-2011 at 08:43 PM.
jungle is offline  
Old 12-14-2011, 05:34 PM
  #23  
Fun Officer
 
RockBottom's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2005
Position: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 515
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post
It's about AOA control. Once AOA is under control, you can control altitude.
Amen!!! At my airline, I'm taught NOT to lose altitude during the staged approach to stall scenarios. Lose more than 100 ft.? I bust!

A bunch of people are having to die before this faulty training is corrected. It's truly sad.
RockBottom is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 06:35 AM
  #24  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Position: Square root of the variance and average of the variation
Posts: 1,602
Default

The FAA has suggested a change to the unrealistic method of min altitude loss during stall recovery:

Pilots of transport-category airplanes should be taught to reduce the angle of attack as their first response to a stall warning, the FAA said on Tuesday. In a new proposed advisory circular, the FAA says it aims to provide "best practices and guidance for training, testing, and checking for pilots to ensure correct and consistent response to unexpected stall warnings, and/or stick pusher activations." The AC is an apparent response to the Colgan Air and Air France crashes, in which the pilots' reaction to stall warnings was part of the accident chain. Jet pilots have often been trained to use power as the initial means of recovery, to minimize altitude loss.


The AC also notes that training in stall recovery is most effective when using simulators that are as realistic as possible. If the simulator experience doesn't duplicate reality, instructors should explain the differences, the AC says. For example, certain simulators may not be able to accurately duplicate the motion cues associated with accelerated stalls. The AC also suggests that while it's a good idea to introduce some distractions while practicing the stall encounter, instructors are discouraged from introducing "multiple compounding malfunctions," to avoid confusion. The FAA is accepting comments on the proposed AC until Jan. 12, via Docket No. FAA-2011-1359 at Regulations.gov.
Std Deviation is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 10:47 AM
  #25  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Default

This is just so weird, never in my training, military or civilian, was I taught to minimize altitude loss. It was always about gaining speed to get the wing flying again. So this is a big surprise to me that the FAA was mandating people minimize altitude loss and thus pulling back which would/could prevent you from fixing the problem ... lack of airspeed.
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 10:54 AM
  #26  
Bracing for Fallacies
 
block30's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: In favor of good things, not in favor of bad things
Posts: 3,543
Default

Originally Posted by rockbottom View Post
amen!!! At my airline, i'm taught not to lose altitude during the staged approach to stall scenarios. Lose more than 100 ft.? I bust!

A bunch of people are having to die before this faulty training is corrected. It's truly sad.
aoa, aoa, aoa. Fly the wing! +1!

Edit....for some reason I can't get all caps here.....
block30 is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 02:02 PM
  #27  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Short Bus Drive's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Default

Interesting read put out last year:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO10012.pdf
Short Bus Drive is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 03:07 PM
  #28  
Banned
 
Joined APC: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,134
Default

Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy View Post
This is just so weird, never in my training, military or civilian, was I taught to minimize altitude loss. It was always about gaining speed to get the wing flying again. So this is a big surprise to me that the FAA was mandating people minimize altitude loss and thus pulling back which would/could prevent you from fixing the problem ... lack of airspeed.
It's nothing but a snapshot of how messed up the FAA is. With the F and the second A being the culprits.

ANYTIME you combine federal and administration, you're bound to get something messed up in the first place, and for it to take a looooonnnggggg time to fix.

It was in the ATP PTS, as well as many many airline training programs to "minimize altitude loss" in not only the recovery, but also the entry. As well as use it as a pass/fail criteria. Sadly, it simply devolved into more of a teaching the student how to enter the stall with minimal loss than it ever was about 1) recognizing the onset of the stall and 2) recovering aircraft control, speed, and altitude. You know, ACTUAL real world life saving actions. As well as how get out of the shaker, try to maintain an AOA (that you have no idea of), etc.

As well as maintaining altitude in the recovery and not going above the entry altitude when the shaker activated, and stabilizing at the speed at which the maneuver was started, etc.
xjtguy is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 03:55 PM
  #29  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Short Bus Drive's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: Guppy Capt.
Posts: 1,887
Default

Originally Posted by xjtguy View Post
It's nothing but a snapshot of how messed up the FAA is. With the F and the second A being the culprits.

ANYTIME you combine federal and administration, you're bound to get something messed up in the first place, and for it to take a looooonnnggggg time to fix.

It was in the ATP PTS, as well as many many airline training programs to "minimize altitude loss" in not only the recovery, but also the entry. As well as use it as a pass/fail criteria. Sadly, it simply devolved into more of a teaching the student how to enter the stall with minimal loss than it ever was about 1) recognizing the onset of the stall and 2) recovering aircraft control, speed, and altitude. You know, ACTUAL real world life saving actions. As well as how get out of the shaker, try to maintain an AOA (that you have no idea of), etc.

As well as maintaining altitude in the recovery and not going above the entry altitude when the shaker activated, and stabilizing at the speed at which the maneuver was started, etc.
Did you open the link I provided, and read it?
Short Bus Drive is offline  
Old 12-15-2011, 04:51 PM
  #30  
Gets Weekends Off
 
KC10 FATboy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
Default

Originally Posted by Short Bus Drive View Post
Interesting read put out last year:

http://www.faa.gov/other_visit/aviat.../SAFO10012.pdf
And the plot thickens ...

It looks like it wasn't an FAA problem, but more of an airline interpretation problem. My issue is, why wasn't this caught by the inspectors or check airman certifying these programs?
KC10 FATboy is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
astroglider
Hangar Talk
4
08-11-2011 10:37 PM
HalinTexas
Safety
41
06-08-2011 06:01 PM
par8head
Major
3
10-17-2009 06:10 AM
Nitefrater
Cargo
70
03-26-2009 05:24 PM
Scoop
Major
106
05-05-2008 09:09 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Your Privacy Choices