Air France Airbus Crash

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I find the explanation of how the fly-by-wire system works very surprising. No doubt the engineering team have their reasons - and good ones I'm sure - but I can't help but feel that if I'd been given the job of developing the first commercial airline fly-by-wire system I might have put near the top of my list of objectives "must feel to the pilot as much like a conventional system as possible". Curious they departed from that - anyone know why?

BEB

PS Forget fly-by-wire we gave that up years ago - we fly with no wires at all!

[Steve W-O]

BEB, I find it odd, and for someone sitting in the back, its the old saying a little knowledge is dangerous.

When you fly a small plane, if it is a stick, you use your right hand. I think gliders are the same, and i think fighters are the same, with throttle on the left hand.

If it is a yoke, you use both hands except when moving other controls, then the yoke is steadied with the left hand.

Everything else, the position of the stick/yoke indicates the control position (strange the Airbus still has rudder pedals)

On the Airbus, the pilot has to fly left handed, and the co-pilot right handed, and as we have read, the position of the stick has no relation to the actual position of the controls.

Rather like flying a flight sim using the arrow keys on the keyboard.

The fact that most flights don't have one crash (maybe 2?) isn't what interests me, what I am interested in is what it is like when things start going wrong, that is what is the telling factor. In normal flight, you could fly the plane with the intercom (Will all passenger run to the back of the plane, will all passengers squeeze up along the left windows etc).

I would prefer to be in a plane that at least had intuitive controls. Never mind training, it is obvious that that sometimes doesn't work. They start off learning with ordinary controls, they do their instrument with ordinary controls, they do their commercial with ordinary controls. the ordinary controls are as they are because they are natural.

When there is only 5 minutes to normalise the situation, i think the less possible areas of error the better.

[Erfolg]

Steve

Could the stick position be driven by wanting the stick out of the way when entering and leaving the seats for the crew?

It seems certain that the current general thrust of fly by wire and extensive computer screen instrumentation is the way of the future.

As for the sticks and how they operate, that is another issue.

What surprises me the most, is that the incident took some time, the junior pilot I am sure did not want to crash the plane. The other two pilots seemed unaware of what he was doing, and what he was doing was perhaps not what they would have anticipated, also they  seemed not to have access to information with respect to his second by second actions or what the plane was doing. I expect they were doing something that they thought was useful, but what. Was there a lack of information to the whole of the crew, to work out what was wrong and what was going wrong.

I personally I am not sure that the Telegraph report is anything other than an abridged version of some part of the reports and knowledge. Who released the report and why, to the newspapers?

Edited By Erfolg on 02/05/2012 17:23:05

[Alan Cantwell]

well, airbus are outselling boeing , so the chances of being able to choose are--well--nill, as for the 380, i cant wait until i get the chance to fly in one, i have total trust in airbus, i do NOT trust boeing, although i would fly in one tomorow, there are thousands of flighst a day, maybe one will crash now and again, but the chances are very small, to condemn a series of aeroplanes for one pilots idiocy is just that, idiocy!!!

[Steve W-O]

Well alan, I am pleased to be in your group of what you call idiots.

Fortunately for me i don't see any reason why your opinion should have any meaning to me, I do respect that you are entitled to your opinions, but once again, after yesterday, this is not the place for me to respond.

You don't trust Boeing, I don't see anyone rating your opinion as that of an idiot.

How do you have the right to rate the pilot as an idiot? I feel certain he was not, he had nearly 3000 hours (the junior one).

I'm entitled to my opinion that if it had been normal controls, the other pilots would have noticed, and you are entitled to your opinion, you enjoy yoour flights on airbus, and I will enjoy mine on Boeing

[Steve Hargreaves - Moderator]

Guys please can we keep it civil. All opinions are valid even they don't agree with the ones you hold.

Please keep on topic...if it gets personal the thread get knecked....

[Alan Cantwell]

your not in a group, your on your own, but sorry for the idiot inference, but please supply me with a word for someone condemning the airbus for one particular crash, when it was the pilot at fault, the pilot killed the plane, the plane did not kill the pilot, the crash did, just look up on google the preffered operating system of the experts, the airbus wins hands down, the statisticcs of boeing crashes are horrific, the action taken by boeing to rectify faults found is poor, look up Kapto wiring, that will shock the pants off you!! as will boeing efforts to remove it from aircraft in the field,

then look up the ford pinto damages V money to modify, and see where the american mindset lays,

we have an opportinty with the aibus industry to topple the americans off the top of the tree, we should be embracing this, not condemning our own efforts,

AGAIN, sorry for the idiot reference, it was not intended as it looked

[Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator]

I'll second that!

And while I'm here can I just add a reminder that even if you disgree, and that's OK, there is a polite and reasonable way of doing it. It is not OK to define, if only by implication, those that disagree with you as idiots, morons, half-wits or any other such subrique! Not aimed at anyone in particular - a few have boardered on it!

Now play nicely boys.

BEB

PS Cross posted with Alan's previous. My "I'll second that" refers to Steve H's post! Not that I have anything against Airbus - just making it clear!

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/05/2012 18:43:30

Edited By Biggles' Elder Brother - Moderator on 02/05/2012 18:44:12

[Alan Cantwell]

my hands are slapped, i will now go stand in a corner, and sulk, but i really do not like our only aircraft industry put down, sorry,

[harris]

To be fair about A380 it's no more different than any other aircraft i've been in. i really can't see it being a very interesting job being a long haul pilot these days, take off then a case of check, check, check and check then land, if i was a pilot i would rather do short haul any day.

[Area 51]

Posted by Alan Cantwell on 02/05/2012 17:27:42: for one pilots idiocy is just that, idiocy!!!

 

Now then, we were not there!>>

 

From the reports and raw data, better management of the situations being faced could have resulted in a much better outcome.. However we must assume the handling pilot was not an idiot... those in the cabin entrusted him with their lives as you did Alan travelling last week, looks like you escaped the "idiot" this time!!!... Perhaps the crew training is an issue and rightly so, since this incident.. I understand Airbus and Boeing have revised their cruise stall recover procedures. This is hinting at something! >>

 

Airbus knew of the problem re pitot icing, they issued an AD (airworthness directive) to retrofit newer more suitable parts to all operating a/c suffering from this pitot icing problem. However, there does not appear to have been any urgency as it was ongoing at the time of this incident! There certainly was after this loss... immediately after the loss they were grounding them to swap out the parts.. Strange one there and the French government initially said they could not afford a sea search for the black box/FDR's.... I bet they did not want to find out knowing what Airbus and the DGAC would have had to tell them when asked was this typing flying with defects?>>

 

A little like a motor manufacturer finding a problem with your brakes and ordering an update/upgrade at the dealership at their expense..>>

 

1. You cant all go at the same time, you need your car daily (airplanes do not earn their keep on an apron).>>

 

2. Airbus will only have budgeted "x" amount per annum to cover these costs of retro fit, therefore no rush either.>>

 

This is just the pitot, I do not wish to comment on the crews activities as they are unable to provide us with their version of the events... RIP our fellow aviators over the lace w:st="on">South Atlanticlace>.>>

 

Lets not get started on if that side stick is up to the job... When training a newbie on a buddy lead, as well as looking at the orientation of the model in the sky, Do you also check their finger input on the TX??, too much and the ground looms..!!!?? Thought so... Similar to our friends in Boeing.. if you can see the stick / throttles move then you have a good idea of the input the a/c is being given.. Same when we train a newbie... too much up/left/down/right.. equates to a bumpy or terminal flight...>>

 

Sitting in this A330... it is reported no one knew just what input the a/c was given as the only stick providing this input was in the hands of the PIC.. Now, what if this input was overzealous.... ?>>

 

I have read from an Airbus engineer, the input given to the stick control is localised to that control... So.. if I were to pull (input) full back (up elevator) on the Airbus side stick and you in the other seat we to command (input) full down (down elevator) the flight system would not alert either crew member to the contradictory inputs.... ???

 

Edited By Chris Bott - Moderator on 02/05/2012 19:26:06

[Area 51]

 

Sorry for dupe... and play nicely... you could be throwing buckets of water out of the window...

 

There is something not quite right if this is the case...

 

The Virgin A340 refusing to land at LHR two years ago because it could not use the same runway it had used the previous four times it landed there...!! The crew reset the Flt computers (hard reset, PULLED THE PLUGS WHILST DESCENDING!!!).. "They" (those pesky Airbus computers) then said "no fuel".. full emergency and full evac down slides… runway shut...

 

The Aer Lingus A330 refusing to land in Dublin 10yrs ago (one of launch customers on the A330, the a/c flew DUB to JFK to DUB daily... then one day, after ten repetitive days of this, it was commanded via the autopilot to land in Shannon due to fog in Dublin...

 

Oh no you don’t.. the A330 overode this command and pressed on for DUB and refused to commence a descent over the Atlantic... Haa.. best not start me on the engine cruise monitoring systems... For months after EACH TRIP back to Dublin the batteries were disconnected from the Flt Management software on every A330 to interrupt any “loop” the a/c maybe generating on its own whereabouts and operating patterns… If your mobile remembers your habits.. imagine what these babies are upto!

 

Boeing “The Lads” chose to leave the crew in charge..

 

“The Lads” absorbed Lockheed (Kelly and the Skunkworks), then MDC too…. The brains here are the best… Therefore…. if it ain’t Boeing… we really shouldn’t be going….

 

The clue on this dotage is in it... They chose to leave the CREW IN CHARGE!

 

Airbus... ? Some crews now say they love them (maybe because it’s a pilot job??) as it leaves them to get on with other things..! Hoovering the Flt deck perhaps, bit of clear drying glue on the cockpit windows maybe.... filling in expenses forms or grabbing the permagrit and sanding some wing ribs to shape on the fold out tray that replaces the control column.… The women are not allowed in anymore with Tiffin so it isn’t that..

 

Edited By Area 51 on 02/05/2012 19:07:33

Edited By Chris Bott - Moderator on 02/05/2012 19:27:19

[Piers Bowlan]

The handling pilot was the more junior co-pilot on this sector and was in the right hand seat. When the auto-pilot and auto-throttle disconnected he would quite literally have had his hands full manually flying a heavy aircraft at altitude where small pitch changes produce rapid changes in altitude. If this was not enough he was flying in turbulence, at night with no visual reference and unreliable/conflicting airspeed data. One cannot under estimate the distracting nature of the aural alerts from the auto-pilot, auto-thrust systems and particularly the incessant voice call outs from the stall warning system. This would have been on top of the distraction of the static discharges from the St Elmo's fire and lightening flashes from adjacent CB clouds.

The other (non Handling) co-pilot in the left hand seat was no doubt trying to assimilate the conflicting and erroneous airspeed information he was getting and interpreting the multiple caution, alert and advisory messages from the instrument displays. He would have been trying to prioritise the handling of checklists so his ability to monitor the other pilots flying would have been degraded. I am sure that the flight crew were very busy, in shock, overloaded and in denial.

The Captain was on a break (in flight rest) in the cabin and not near the flight deck. It took him 90 seconds to reach the flight deck when he was alerted. The aircraft was descending at 10,000 fpm. On the other hand, the bunk rest area on a B747-400 is adjacent to the Flight deck so any loud aural alert (fire bell, stall warning, TCAS RA for example) would most likely wake a resting crew member in the bunk area. A good design feature from Boeing in my opinion. When the Air France Captain eventually reached the flight deck he sat on the third seat and was in a good position to diagnose the problem. Sadly he arrived too late and the correct diagnosis was never made.

The information available at the moment is from the interim report but I believe the full report from the French airworthiness authorities (BEA) will be published next month.

[Peter Beeney]

A very emotive subject, and, as has been said, it’s always very easy to blame someone who can’t defend themselves.
There is a book from 1995 called The Naked Pilot, subtitled The Human Factor in Aircraft Accidents, written by David Beaty, who is listed as being a former RAF pilot, (DFC and Bar), airline pilot, historian, Foreign Office Principle, psychologist and author. He has made a study of why aircraft accidents happen, as opposed to what happened and who did it

.
Certainly very enlightening and interesting, frequently accidents can tend to be instigated weeks if not months before the actual event, often by a number of different players. From government officials to the manufactures in some cases. But there are indeed many different reasons. Area 51 mentioned the Trident crash at Staines, it appeared that other Trident planes had given spurious ‘stick shaking’ stall warnings previously, which had been ignored, so these pilots may well have done the same. The ‘mind-set’ problem maybe, which it seems can in some circumstances be very difficult to get out.

There was a television documentary relating to a McDonnell Douglas airliner (I think), which crashed in the sea just off the American coast somewhere, so it was entirely recovered. It was discovered that the worm gear mechanism driving the elevator had become so worn the thread had literally stripped, and the pilot suddenly was unable to alter the pitch and so it crashed and as I remember all were killed in the impact. In the subsequent investigation it transpired that the airline, presumably in conjunction with the manufacturers, had decided that the maintenance and lubrication periods could be extended. It’s almost inconceivable that this could be implemented to the point that it had this result. After all the care that is taken to ensure the safety of the airliners, someone is then able to make a decision like this that turns it all on it’s head!
Definitely another case of the cause of an accident beginning a long time before it actually happened!

We happen to have 2 Airbus Captains in our little club, one is a very long time friend, the other is the father of one of our junior members. They weren’t known to each other previously. Both extremely nice gentlemen, friendly and very approachable; if and when it stops raining I’ll get their take on it. At least they will have the exact details, and foibles, if any, of the fly-by-wire system.

There have been many cases of airline failures, made worse by that fact that it invariably involves so many souls. But on a pro rata basis, based on passenger air-miles travelled, then by far and away it’s still the safest form of transport, I believe. If you compare that to being of the age between 17 and 24, then riding a motorcycle is not only considered to be the most dangerous form of transport, it’s also the most dangerous occupation…..

PB

[Keith Simmons]

I agree, Better wait for the full report and remembering the Tristar which the rear engine fell off mid flight in USA, The pilots managed to "land" the plane on the runway with a help of another Tristar captain who was a passenger that worked on the throttles, Nearly all survived. The other pilots after the event could not reach the airfield and all crashed when trying it out on the simulator using the same conditions.

The computer can do the flying in normal mode, but when the unexpected happened, it is not programmed to cope, I mean you can trip the gyro if you do anything extreme.

My take is that the "junior" pilot assumed he was diving and not in a stall with a downward speed of 10,000 ft/min. and tried to raise the nose to climb out out the dive?  he had plenty of hours on the type of aircraft he was flying and maybe did not think outside the box?

Edited By Keith Simmons on 03/05/2012 08:32:57

[harris]

Hundreds and hundreds of airbus take offs every day--and they all land as well!! and the daft comment of if its not boeing i am not going, their aircraft crash as well---many have!!! TOO many!!

Airbus pioneered fly by wire in airliners, i would think the problems are all sorted now, or dont you think they learn? i flew airfrance last week--TWICE, and you know, it didnt crash once, and it was an airbus too, SHOCK, HORROR

Fly by wire was actually pioneered on the Concorde by BAC and Aerospatial. Spelt wrong but i can't be bothered to check.

[Erfolg]

The comment on the junior pilot believing he was falling could well be correct.

I am again assuming the reason he thought he was, was due to the information available to him.

I guess that the other pilots did not know that they were climbing steeply, was that this information was not available to them.

I guess none of them knew they were badly stalled, until it was to late, if they knew at all.

I do not expect pilots to think outside the box, until they have understanding of the situation is outside the training envelope and something else may work.

I personally have a lot of sympathy with the crew, if they are being blamed.

I also do accept that advances in safety do often come on the back of issues encountered. Be it the aircraft or pilot training.