80ktsClamp

Correct. The AOA talk just started because someone mentioned how nice it was to have that. No one has suggested that it would have caused this crew to start flying their airplane.

flyboy2909

CVR indicates a breakdown of CRM in the 214 Cockpit...and lets not forget Koreans have an infamous history of steep Cockpit Gradients.

flyboy2909

i still believe Human Factors specialists in NTSB need to analyse Korean crews field of vision on PAPI...and i say this strictly from a technical perspective.

and as it is depth perception on approach to SFO is a challenge...and this PF was cleared for long finals on his first approach to SFO.

Bilsch

I would think that field of vision is a non-factor as long as the seat was properly adjusted. Field of vision should be the same for all pilots with the seat properly set (if there is no vision deficiency or impairment).

I am not sure where you are going with this? Is there some physiological factor of a Korean pilot compared to another pilot that makes you think this?

flyboy2909

"field of vision"...think about it.

Timbo

That's neat and it would be great if we were all trained to fly AOA vs. airspeed all the time. In a couple of the light singles I fly, the airspeed indicators are always suspect, due to age, dirt, wasps nests, water accumulation in the lines, etc. so I pretty much ignore them on takeoff and landing. They usually show 40 when I know I'm doing 60+ on takeoff, or showing 100+ when I know I'm slowing through 60 to land. I was doing hammerheads one day and at the very top, at nearly zero airspeed, it was still showing 60!

The Decathalon I fly once in a while has this thing called The Bacon Saver which is a poor man's AOA. It's a simple aluminum triangle wind vane type thing, mounted over a semi-circle aluminum plate, with graduation marks on the plate, and a red zone.

The whole rig is only about 5" in diameter and it's mounted on the left wing strut brace, about eye level if you're in the front seat. I've looked online for a picture, but cannot find any to show you.

The only time I look at it is when I'm turning base to final, because it's right in my line of sight at that point. I've played with pulling the stick back hard, until the vane goes into the red zone, just to see what it shows as I near stall. Seems to be fairly accurate.

But I still can feel what the airplane is telling me through the stick, vs. looking at The Bacon Saver to know when enough is enough.

On the Airbus accident thing; at night, over water, in the weather, and all your instruments are going nutz, which one do you believe to be accurate?

First thing I would think of is icing in the pitot-static system, so I'd toss out all those instruments first, (airspeed, VVI, Altimeter) and just hold wings level slight nose up, and power about 3/4....and hope to fly out of the icing....but if the VVI is pegged down, and the altimeter is unwinding, well...do you believe it, and attempt a stall recovery?

If they'd had an AOA pegged in the red, well, I think that would have helped them diagnose the situation, if they'd been trained to use it. As I said earlier, we have an AOA in our 777's, but no training on how to use it.

cardiomd

Well... yes, hopefully one would. Again, very easy for me to say sitting here without my life on the line being forced to think creatively while heading straight down.

Do you think there would be other cues (sounds in cockpit: consistent with overspeed?) Handling of controls (presumably with a Boeing they could have felt a tight response vs mushing), or even GPS referenced ground speed (if know approximate winds aloft enroute, can tell the difference between deep stall and overspeed with instrument malfunction.) All of these could point to stall vs overspeed.

With Asiana I'm surprised the sight picture just didn't make sense and give them time to get out of the situation. But, my Lycoming doesn't take 7 seconds to spool up.

Regarding AOA, yeah I've heard of the "bacon saver" device. There are two glider pilots at a nearby airfield where I often fly (not my primary airport) and they have a little string that is taped to the canopy as the most basic AOA indicator. Whatever works!

Timbo

That little yarn on the glider canopy is a yaw indicator, not AOA. Due to the very long wingspan of a glider, every time you use aileron, you get a huge amount of adverse yaw, wich, if not corrected is just more drag, which is the mortal enemy of a glider, especially if they are into competition gliding.

I don't know if you'd be able to feel 'mushiness' in a modern jet, through the yoke. As you know all the Airbus are sidestick/fly by wire, and the 777 is also fly by wire, but with a yoke, so the only feedback you get is the artificial feel built into the system.

As far as warnings, I think the Air France guys were getting saturated with too many, conflicting warnings, and never figured out what was going on until it was too late.

80ktsClamp

There aren't really any auditory or feel clues on a modern airliner. I can tell you by sound when we're doing above 300 knots, but that's about it. Feel wise, airliners are hydraulic controls and the new ones (even boeing) are all FBW. Any "feel" is all artificial. Pitch attitude and power settings at various speeds are your best cross checks.

As far as the AF incident- that's where deck angle comes into play. For some reason, the PF pulled the airplane to 17 degrees nose up at FL350. 17!!!! The most you ever want to see at that altitude is around 5. DL had at least a couple similar occurrences with airspeed malfunction. They just disconnected the AP and AT, set 2.5 degrees pitch attitude and 90% N1. That's how you don't make the news and keep everyone alive.

So many carriers around the world are so averse to hand flying and want their pilots to just be button pushers. I'd be willing to bet that is a primary factor in this. I wouldn't be surprised if the PF was flying with two hands on the yoke.

georgetg

sent to me by a buddy, it almost happened again:

EVA B773 at San Francisco on Jul 23rd 2013, descended below safe height

Cheers
George