Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic? | Page 11 | FerrariChat

Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic?

Discussion in 'Aviation Chat' started by James_Woods, Oct 2, 2009.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
  2. Simon^2

    Simon^2 F1 World Champ

    Oct 17, 2005
    12,313
    At Sea Level
    Because you repeatedly posted incorrect references to weightlessness and zero-g...

    This is a technical thread were the physics is important.
     
  3. 11506apollo

    11506apollo F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2008
    2,699
    Tx Co Ca
    Interesting discussions going on here guys. I am not a pilot, but I do fly a lot as a passenger.
    A few comments....and questions (dumb possibly), if I may.

    Would it have made any difference in that particular case if the fligth was during day ligth? I mean, could the pilots have gotten better information by looking out the window and seeing the horizon, or clouds, etc?

    I definitely feel airplanes "fall" sligthly when they loose some altitude due to turbulence, and I have gone through several "pockets" of lower density air causing the airplane to fall a few hundred feet or more in a few seconds. Coffee stains are still on one of my shirts to prove. So, the question is...why didn't the pilots felt whether or not the jet was falling? If a stall alarm goes off, but I don't feel the jet falling, wouldn't this tell you the alarm is false?

    Lastly, so I don't bother you guys anymore....I am flying to Milan this Sunday, and I will do my best to fly a Boing jetliner, with an American crew,...but in the future I will refuse to fly anything built by Airbus because of too many computerized controls. I am an old timer, and although I appreciate the safety record of modern flying, I think there is a limit on what computers can do, and removing the human brain from command will lead to more disasters like this.

    Thanks.

    Cheers.
     
  4. 430man

    430man Formula Junior

    Jan 18, 2011
    489
    Well the real answer is we'll never know. (duh) But having said that, if I had to place a wager, my money would say if it were VFR they would be alive today. And I'd place a side bet that everyone here would take the same bet. (ie agree)

    Another Captain made a great point I had not considered. He said he damn well knows what his jet sounds like at speed. If he lost air speed indication he could (even without being trained for it) level it off and put the power on CLB and know what the jet would sound like. I guess that is what makes the story so compelling at this point. I think we are were 'ready' to blame the pitots... And we were all 'ready' to accept some flavor of pilot error.... But this exact type of error seems so basic and avoidable it exceeds our expectations.


    heh... just remember, the computer was doing fine and would have never stalled the plane, it took a human to make it go totally fubar....

    Remember that old adage, "To err is human but to really foul things up requires a computer."

    This was basically the exact opposite of that. ;)
     
  5. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    LOL, Where?..... You quote four posts. Only one of which I made a statement that, btw, is factual.

    It was in response to this post:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by 430man View Post
    Um... I have a question that might strike a few of you as odd... but ummm can you other males tell when you are descending rapidly without the use of any instruments?
    ------------------

    I responded: "If you were falling at that speed you would absolutely know. You feel the weightlessness and you can see things in the cockpit floating or on the ceiling. "

    Are you saying that you wouldn't? How does that rapid descent start? Not rapidly? 430man, to answer your question, I personally have descended rapidly. I knew I was descending rapidly without the use of instruments.

    Simon, apparently, you need instruments......I asked questions and the physics majors haven't answered.

    Another question for the book guys. If you initially felt a zero or neg. G situation and then felt an approximate 1g force.... which way are you headed?
     
  6. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    8,017
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    Please don't think that you are bothering anyone. That's what this forum is about, sharing what you know with others who may not have been exposed to or be a part of the myriad of facets of this complex and varied subject. You ask valid questions and the only way that any of us can learn about all this is to ask a question about that which you don't understand. I'm an old guy who flies, but now only with my son or generous friends, and this AF447 thing is beyond me so I listen with big ears and try to keep my big mouth closed so as not to sound too sophomoric. So, I hope that one or two of the professional pilots answer your questions (that I think are logical and viable). I think that one of your questions will be answered that the weather radar that jets have will give you much more info as to the height and configuration of a storm than your eyes can. Ask more questions about the flying industry, it will make you more comfortable if you have some knowledge about what is happening while you are flying. Some of those bumps in the night(air) aren't always spooks and gremlins.
     
  7. 430man

    430man Formula Junior

    Jan 18, 2011
    489
    Oh, no doubt... But even if they 'just' followed the book and went to 5 degrees and CLB the rest of it might never have happened. And while that is speculation I think we all agree their odds would have gone up exponentially.

    Really though (in my mind) that is like the pitot tube... it played a part and a big part but the failure to manage the stall trumped all. (IMO)

    I could not find a definitive answer from my readings... from what I could tell the pilot(s) had AOA available to them but buried a screen or two deep. But I'm only about 85% sure of that answer.
     
  8. Simon^2

    Simon^2 F1 World Champ

    Oct 17, 2005
    12,313
    At Sea Level
    #258 Simon^2, May 28, 2011
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
    be as condescending and rude as you like...

    Until you exceed 1 g acceleration down,... nothing floats to the ceiling. 10,000 feet per minute isn't fast. what matters is how fast they transitioned from level flight to that 10,000 feet per minute decent.

    Consider this...

    it's pitch black outside... they hit severe turbulence... the plane violently rises and sinks. all equalibrium is lost. the plane initally may be falling at 50,000 ft/minute.... decreasing that rate of fall to 10,000 feet /minute can result in the false perception of climbing. from then on they may be falling and have absolutely no idea...

    FWIW, I have a Mech Engineering degree and a pilots license.

    Oh... and in IFR conditions... yes I need instruments. human's are prone too misinterpret sensory data.
     
  9. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    Claudio, like Bob said, your questions aren't a bother and are the reason for threads like this one.

    I can tell you if I was in that situation I would want to be able to look out the cockpit for visual ref.... Being able to see the horizon is a huge reference point.

    Yep, you're felling a loss of gravitational force. You probably also feel a little heavier in your seat when you recover.

    I know what you mean regarding Boeing. I prefer them too......
     
  10. 430man

    430man Formula Junior

    Jan 18, 2011
    489
    You know Apollo, I went out to clean my pool but thought about this and had to give you another thought. There is a certain irony about your comment.. The one thing on the aircraft that (so far) looks blameless is the computer.

    The two causal factors were a mechanical pitot tube (first invented over 200 years ago) and human error. The computer realized its own limitations and handed the hot potato to a human. (Just as it was designed to do!)

    There are still some questions about the trim... But for all the talk about automation etc... it sounds so far like the computer wasn't even in the mix, it got out the way.

    Food for thought.
     
  11. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    Wow...So I guess correcting someone that doesn't need correcting isn't rude. Making references to things I never said isn't rude. I guess your tone has been nothing but civil.

    I'm well aware of the statements you make. They are obvious.....They also don't dispute anything I said. I get it... You need instruments....It was also obvious you're an ME.
     
  12. teak360

    teak360 F1 World Champ

    Nov 3, 2003
    10,065
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott
    #262 teak360, May 28, 2011
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
    Just as much as I trust a used car salesman that says...."trust me".

    I've done zero G maneuvers, but you still don't understand the physics involved.

    You actually do need correcting. You don't understand disorientation in IFR conditions nearly enough to be as certain as you think you are. The simple fact is that getting false data while losing control in IFR conditions can very easily lead to being totally unaware of the planes orientation, including descending at 10,000 fpm and not knowing it.

    There are lots of pilots that don't understand this. The fact is you really don't need to understand the physics of flight to get away with flying planes. Airmail pilots used to think they needed to correct for crosswinds on cross country legs with continuous rudder input. Some modern pilots think they can tell what their plane is doing through some supernatural male intuition. Ridiculous.
     
  13. 11506apollo

    11506apollo F1 Rookie
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 16, 2008
    2,699
    Tx Co Ca
    430man,
    I understand your point.
    A jetliner is a very complex machine. It takes powerfull software, exotic materials, advanced engineering, procedures, experienced pilots, jet fuel (let's not forget that part because I work in refineries...lol) to fly it safely, profitably and successfully. In my total ignorance about flying I simply would not like to see a jetliner full of passengers become uncontrolable by the crew because the software and/or a malfunctioning sensor or probe caused an "100 year storm". In other words, caused an unlikely set of conditions leading to a disaster. This case may very well be one of those "very unlikely" situations where several factors ocurred in a certain sequential order leading to a bad outcome. In my 32 year long carrer as a Metallurgist executing failure analysis and forensic investigations the one thing I have learned is that most disasters are caused by a number of ocurrences in a certain order, and very rarely caused by a single event or fault. So, this may very well have been a conbination of bad weather and a mechanical device failing followed by inexperienced/desoriented pilots and possibly other software issues as well. I am kinda confident that this airplane is a good/reliable machine and I sincerely hope this is a tragedy that will make the industry better and safer. Cheers and thanks to all for this open discussion.
     
  14. teak360

    teak360 F1 World Champ

    Nov 3, 2003
    10,065
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott
    You seem to have a pretty good grasp of things, except for the "profitably" part! That seems to have eluded the commercial airline business for decades. This accident was a combination of events that were extremely unlikely to occur just as you surmised. The fact is the modern-day airline safety record is astonishingly good. Those that say they will never fly on an Airbus are simply not statistically oriented; they are basing decisions on irrational fears.
     
  15. 430man

    430man Formula Junior

    Jan 18, 2011
    489
    #265 430man, May 28, 2011
    Last edited: May 28, 2011
    No Scott, the parts on me that know when I'm descending are all natural, I was born with them. I'm learning this weekend apparently I'm unique in this aspect. ;) ;) ;) ;)

    Edit: check your PM
     
  16. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    It's disappointing to have fellow Fchaters make statements like you've made regarding what I understand or don't. It's presumptuous and very telling. I don't know why you want to come across that way. Further, Do you realize in the post of mine that you quoted there are no statements. Only questions...

    I don't disagree with your statements regarding situational awareness.

    That said, I made a broad statement to very non technical question. You guys seem to want to make a this a physics assignment. He asked in general "....but ummm can you other males tell when you are descending rapidly without the use of any instruments?". I think maybe his question should have been "can you other males tell when you are descending rapidly, BUT at a constant rate of decent, under terminal velocity, with a gradual initial rate of descent, for a continual length of time, without any other visual or sensory stimulus.

    I'm going to say again in generic terms "yes"... If you want to continue to throw scenarios out be my guest.

    I hope there are not "lots of pilots that don't understand this".

    "The fact is you really don't need to understand the physics of flight to get away with flying a plane." I think you need to understand the basics of physics and fluid dynamics. That said, I think you can "physics" yourself into the ground when you should just be flying.
     
  17. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,105
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    Have you ever descended at 10,000 fpm in an airplane?

    Or even 6,000 fpm?

     
  18. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    Hi Don, to answer your question, I can't say with certainty. Do you mean for a continued constant rate and continued period of time? If so, than no... Most of my unusual attitude training was below 8000' so I don't think it would have been prudent. Probably some of the fastest I've descended was during spin training, which I would "guesstimate" at the rate of descent you asked about.
     
  19. Bob Parks

    Bob Parks F1 Veteran
    Consultant

    Nov 29, 2003
    8,017
    Shoreline,Washington
    Full Name:
    Robert Parks
    Okay, I'm going to unzip my fly here and expose what I think I might know. In a spin you are still at 1G or above. With 0G you are either in space on an orbit that presents you with no acceleration or momentarily in an airplane that has managed to briefly fly the arc that matches or exceeds the pull of gravity. John Kennedy Jr. felt 1G while he was in a dead man's spiral and was sure that he was in level flight until he hit the water. So anyone in a deep stall in an airplane descending at a speed less than that of 0G will feel the acceleration of gravity.
    I think back about the KC-135 incident in the early 60's when an Air Force general took the controls of a KC for a planned record flight to Europe and after they broke ground and achieved about 100 feet altitude and after a mile and a half flew into a complex of high tension wires. The airplane had been locked into a deep stall where there wasn't enough thrust or tail power to get it out and it flew in a stabile stall until it hit something. I have a feeling that is what happened to AF447. Cruise thrust, stabilizer in nose up position, and an angle of attack that produced a deep stalled wing. I'm not running as fast as the rest of you guys on this but that is was I feel.
     
  20. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,163
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    LJ- No you cannot. I have done hundreds of negative g maneuvers (F-111 guys loved negative g maneuvers because everybody else hated them) and you need an arc to generate any negative g, just like you need an arc to generate positive g. If what you are saying were true, you would feel like you are accelerating when you are level and going 500 KTAS.

    The inner ear is easily fooled, especially if you have no visual references and your instrument cross-check is not good or your instruments are giving you conflicting information. In the Airbus case the aircraft departed controlled flight in a gentle climb and then sank in a stable attitude with no feeling of loss of lift because everything happened gradually. Acceleration downwards was relatively slow as lift decreased. The only real indication appears to have been an uncommanded rocking back and forth on the roll axis, which would have further dumped the crew members' inner ears. The rocking was caused by first one wing and then the other generating more lift due to dihedral. 10,000 fpm is only ~100 knots and that is only the average descent rate based on initial altitude and time to impact.

    So, no, you would not have felt the descent rate.

    I have watched many student pilots engage the altitude hold function on the autopilot and then set too low a throttle setting because they were distracted. The aircraft would fly happily along, slowing gradually as the AOA increased until it could no longer maintain altitude and then the autopilot disengaging and handing the aircraft back to the pilot, just like the Airbus did, and then descending. A little throttle and possibly a small bunt or low yoyo and everything was back to normal. But the pilots never felt the slowing or AOA increase because it was gradual. Valuable lesson for them to learn.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  21. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,105
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    I haven't done 10,000 fpm, but I have pegged the VSI in both directions for sustained periods.

    Once the airplane is stabilized in a descent (or a climb, for that matter), and assuming pressurization, it's not obvious if you are climbing and descending, other than by referencing either the instruments, or sometimes the deck angle. For the airbus guys, I believe the deck angle was actually positive, which would make it even more difficult.

    It is much different that doing it for a short period of time, in an unusual attitude or a spin.

     
  22. donv

    donv Two Time F1 World Champ
    Owner Rossa Subscribed

    Jan 5, 2002
    26,105
    Portland, Oregon
    Full Name:
    Don
    That's what it sounds like to me, as well. I don't think that the fly-by-wire would let you get into a deep stall, though.

    However, if a pilot is holding the stick back and the airplane is basically in a stalled condition-- mushing forward-- it would look somewhat like a deep stall. The difference, of course, is that you can get out of a mush condition by releasing the back pressure, while in a true deep stall even full forward stick won't get you out of it.

     
  23. tazandjan

    tazandjan Three Time F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa Owner

    Jul 19, 2008
    39,163
    Clarksville, Tennessee
    Full Name:
    Terry H Phillips
    Don- I have done way more than 10,000 fpm while on automatic TFR coming down the back side of a mountain. Way, way more doing aerobatics.

    Taz
    Terry Phillips
     
  24. LetsJet

    LetsJet F1 Veteran
    Owner

    May 24, 2004
    9,334
    DC/LA/Paris/Haleiwa
    Full Name:
    Mr.
    Don,

    I really enjoy your posts....

    Let me also state that I have done Zero G pushovers, power off dives, powered on dives, Loops, Barrel rolls I have pegged the VSI in both directions for limited periods. You get the picture...

    "Once the airplane is stabilized in a descent (or a climb, for that matter), and assuming pressurization, it's not obvious if you are climbing and descending, other than by referencing either the instruments, or sometimes the deck angle. For the airbus guys, I believe the deck angle was actually positive, which would make it even more difficult"

    I agree with you....maybe I should have made that more clear. Thought I did...

    But what about before you were stabilized in the descent? Did you feel it?


    I agree with the direction you both are going in regards to AF 447. Though, I still am not sure we have all the data.

    Taz,

    Let's go up and you can prove it to me.....

    Were you the instructor? As the aircraft continued to slow and increase AOA the pitch angle would also increase correct? The student didn't catch that either? Was the student flying or busy with something else? Also I can understand how the student wouldn't feel anything until departure, but the situation was corrected prior. Would the student have felt the stall?

    Let me further state that I'm familiar with hood training and how the inner ear can be fooled.

    I really want to continue this, but I got to roll. I also don't want to derail this thread as we've already diverted a bit. Maybe another thread or offline.


    Back on topic - What do you think about this: "The trimmable horizontal stabilizer (THS) passed from 3 to 13 degrees nose-up in about 1 minute and remained in the latter position until the end of the flight."

    Makes no sense to me......

    LJ
     
  25. teak360

    teak360 F1 World Champ

    Nov 3, 2003
    10,065
    Boulder, CO
    Full Name:
    Scott

    Thanks Taz. You said it in a nicer with an excellent example. I'll bet those student pilots would have taken long odds that they were flying straight, level and constant speed. It's possible the AF crew couldn't overcome the descent, but I think what some aren't understanding is this descent took a long time (in relative terms) and it was very possible the crew hadn't the slightest idea they were descending.
    Hitting a downdraft in a plane, cresting a hill in your car or the initial descent in a fast elevator have no relationship to what this crew was experiencing.
     

Share This Page