AF Rio-Paris New Report

[jackpilot]

Reprint from: International Herald Tribune
A detailed analysis of the crash of an Air France jet over the Atlantic Ocean two years ago appears to support suggestions by outside experts that fundamental errors by the pilots caused the plane to stall and plummet 38,000 feet into the sea, killing all 228 people aboard.

The report, which was released on Friday, stopped short of any final conclusions. But initial findings highlighted by investigators from France's Bureau of Investigations and Analysis indicated that the two co-pilots in the cockpit of the Airbus A330-200 at the time the plane ran into trouble had never been trained to fly the aircraft in manual mode at high altitude. Nor had they been instructed how to....
Read full article at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/30/world/europe/air-france-flight-447-crash-report-july-2011.html?ref=global-home

[MLeavy737]

And we just so happened to be replacing the pitot tubes on all the aircraft but didnt get to that one yet... Pilot error sounds good... Stamp..

But what do i know..

Mike Leavy

[NeoMorph]

The difference between the plane causing the crash and the pilots. Pilot error or Pitot error. So close.

Thing is, why did the pilot flying try to gain height? Seems contraindicated to me if the stall warning sounded. Panic?

[jackpilot]

Panic certainly not.
These guys were pros and did what pilots do in IMC ,Trust  the instruments! then....
Still too early to know, if ever.
JP

[fsaviator]

The difference between the plane causing the crash and the pilots. Pilot error or Pitot error. So close.

Thing is, why did the pilot flying try to gain height? Seems contraindicated to me if the stall warning sounded. Panic?

Mike, please correct me if I am wrong:

Icing seemed to be a factor...  if that is the case, the proper procedure when icing is encountered is to climb out of the conditions (at least in my Piston Single Engine Land world).  I would imagine the procedures would be similar to an extent, even in a multiengine turbine world as the icing is affecting the flight surfaces.  it would also tend to support the stall conditions, especially at altitude.  If the crew attempted to climb out of the icing, and speed sensors (pitot etc) were faulty, it could lead to an improper engine adjustment, would could lead to a stall.  Not sure what would have affected the Anti-ice equipment though.

How close am I?

Warren

[NeoMorph]

I think they are saying ice crystals formed in the pitot tubes. They should have pitched up at 5^o but they pitched up much higher for some reason. They were climbing at 11,000ft/min when they stalled. 

That is why they are saying it is pilot error and not pitot icing that caused the crash.

[jackpilot]

My post was more an Update than anything else.
All of us try to understand what happened because we are interested in airplanes and airmanship.
Unfortunately, for the crowds and the Liability guys , it is more a matter of Blaming, either  the airplane or the pilots, or both.
The enquiry goes on, and many issues are still under investigation .
Probably all pieces of the puzzle will eventually come together, but in the meantime one thing is certain, the Guys in the front did their very best to save the ship from a chain of events that they most probably did not create, and they did it with whatever instruments information and training they had.
JP

[MLeavy737]

The difference between the plane causing the crash and the pilots. Pilot error or Pitot error. So close.

Thing is, why did the pilot flying try to gain height? Seems contraindicated to me if the stall warning sounded. Panic?

Mike, please correct me if I am wrong:

Icing seemed to be a factor...  if that is the case, the proper procedure when icing is encountered is to climb out of the conditions (at least in my Piston Single Engine Land world).  I would imagine the procedures would be similar to an extent, even in a multiengine turbine world as the icing is affecting the flight surfaces.  it would also tend to support the stall conditions, especially at altitude.  If the crew attempted to climb out of the icing, and speed sensors (pitot etc) were faulty, it could lead to an improper engine adjustment, would could lead to a stall.  Not sure what would have affected the Anti-ice equipment though.

How close am I?

Warren

  Well sometimes i have a few beers and start talking smack before i really know what im talking about lol. We all been there huu?? i dont fly an Airbus so everything i know about it is from others and previous accidents. For one thing up altitude you generally dont get icing and its not required to be on at temps below -40 SAT. Thats typically in the mid 30's FL and above. Not sure what altitude they were flying at.  Also why were they replacing the pitot tubes?? Im not exactly sure, maybe knowing that would help figure out the problem. To me its a cover up but then again im into conspiracy theories so that may explain my view on things.
  The problem with just climbing at that altitude weather its turbulance or icing is due to the lowspeed stall.. Coffin corner type stuff. Example in the 737 when your up altitude and close to the MAX altitude given in the FMC. If your cruising along there at max altitide,  take a look at how close the yellow / red overspeed and stall bars on the airspeed indicator. Not much to play around with.. Now add in some turbulance from thunderstorms or some icing and you find yourself in trouble real fast. Thats why you want to leave some room and stay a little lower picking through thunderstorms. Alot of people say hell, ill climb and get above it all.. Next thing you know you falling out of the sky in a highspeed stall.
  That could also have something to do with what happened there. I heard in a stall in the airbus (which i though was not possible in the first place) the pilot is supposed to just hold full aft and the "computer smart" airplane will fly its way out.. Thats all Sully did landing in the river btw.. Just held full aft and the airplane stayed at its slowest speed possible just above stall. Sooo.. Now combine a faulty maybe iced up pitot tube,  the pilot just doing what he is supposed to do in a stall holding full aft, and combine that with an airplane that has no idea whats going on and 3 min later your in the ocean..
  Once again, pilot error.. Sure.. Sounds good, wouldnt want anyone to know what really happend with the airplane or why we were replacing stuff would we?
  Btw, flew with a captain few trips ago who departed KDCA in a 737 and hit a bunch of Large birds.. One went through the engine. Engine vibration was off the scale. Instead of the engine shutting down by itself like an airbus, the 73 engine just kept running.. Captain brough the power back to about 40%, the vibration came down to a pretty good number and they diverted to KIAD few miles away..

Im not an airbus fan if ya'll didnt notice

Flame on!

Mike Leavy
 

[dharrison]

If it ain't Boeing, it ain't going!!!

Don

[jackpilot]

Guys, AB vs B is not the intent.

Bernard, the BEA recommendation is valid for all aircrafts, Boeing included, ...it is about time that Airlines train/allow pilots to do what they are supposed to do, ie be able to fly the aircraft instead of watching it fly itself with the best cost index.

[fordgt40]

Mad Hatter

Whilst I fully agree with your comments over training and lack of stick flying, perhaps your comment below is a little harsh.


"Even from a poor pilot, I expect to read 11,000 FPM altitude loss, no airspeed,

with nose up as stall, and recover from it quickly, or he has no business

entering cockpits."


They had no speed indications for some time, no angle of attack gauge (an option AF did not take up) and lost confidence in the instrumentation. The situation was compounded by an erratic "stall warning" that was counter intuitive ie it turned itself off when the speed dropped below 60knots, only to resume when the speed was increased again!!

It is worth noting that a Boeing Birgenair flight plunged into the Atlantic following a stall arising from confusing instrument readings attributed to a blocked pitot tube

Again, I fully concur with your comments on training and it is worth noting that the perceived wisdom of dealing with loss of instrumentation in whole or part - is to fly "pitch and power" until the instruments return, which has been generally quite quickly in the previously recorded instances. Above all else do not over control.

Agreed, that with hindsight and the comfort of an armchair, it is inconceivable that the stall was not recognised.

Regards

David

[NeoMorph]

They had no speed indications for some time, no angle of attack gauge (an option AF did not take up) and lost confidence in the instrumentation.

Hmmm... I wonder whether AF will be bulk ordering a load of AOA gauges.