Any updates on the Airbus lost in the Atlantic?

Jim, there is no bottom line yet. This is a very prelim. report. There's hardly enough data for speculation. If fact, it raises more questions than answers.

Also, no where in the report does it state the amount / type of training these pilots had.

 

Yes, that probably is the basic cause-- although, as LetsJet points out, we don't have the final report.

However, very few (no?) airlines train using a similar scenario, so it's not like Air France's training was worse than others.

One difference between US airlines and many of the European carriers is the use of pilots whose main experience is doing some initial training, and then flying high performance jet aircraft. A US pilot who cut his or her teeth doing single pilot cargo work in junky airplanes might have handled this situation much better. Or maybe not...

You could argue, on the other hand, that all of the air forces of the world use ab-initio pilots, and they don't seem to have these issues, but it may be that military training puts a greater emphasis on basic stick and rudder skills-- I really don't know.

In many ways, this accident is actually quite similar to Colgan 3407, although the Colgan guys only had a few thousand feet to figure things out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colgan_Air_Flight_3407

 

You should read this document: "AIRPLANE UPSET RECOVERY TRAINING AID" about the differences of opinion between the manufacturers (Airbus, Boeing) on one side and the main airlines (American Airlines, Delta, and United) on the other side about upset training.

It is short (6 pages) but I believe it is very relevant to what happened with AF447.

http://www.ntsb.gov/Events/2001/AA587/exhibits/240005.pdf

 

Thanks for the info! I'm now fully edified and informed.

 

An interesting perspective, from an A330 Captain:

http://www.avweb.com/news/avmail/AVmail_LettersToTheEditor_204773-1.html

 

It is a video game, not an airplane.

Geez........more of the continuous stream of criticism about Airbus flight controls from it's own pilots (not withstanding what's found on Pprune in some 5,000 posts on the subject).......who would have thought eh ?

 

That and that alone is the reason I have never wanted to fly an Airbus. Sidesticks are just completely unatural for an airplane that size and are numb and artificial. Cant beat a big fat yoke that you can grab with both hands and arms. I can feel most everything my airplane is doing just by placing my hand on the yoke.

 

I tend to agree. I can recall three accidents that have been related to pilot input/control system response on these planes -

1) - the one flown into the trees off the runway at an airshow in France.
2) - the NYC crash where the co-pilot overdid rudder input in wake turbulence.
3) - and now this.

 

Well it comes down to preference really but I liken it to driving a performance car. Imagine if your Ferrari had an electronic steering wheel that was in no way connected to the front wheels other than through a computer and and you could not feel what the front wheels were doing going around a track at high speed. Some pilots dont care, they just go out turn the autopilot on make their money and go home, but I enjoy flying jets and want absolute control over my machine and want it to communicate to me through the seat of my pants.

 

Isn't it interesting that brake-by-wire systems (like Mercedes) and electric power steering systems have been given a generally bad reception by automotive test writers?

 

Probably not as big a deal to an F-16 pilot, but I doubt there are that many of them flying airbusses. The early F-16 side controllers did not move at all and were pressure only devices. Pilots did not like them and some movement was introduced. Not sure how the Airbus stick works. I have flown the F-16 and the aircraft was easy to control with good feedback on what was happening, but not through the stick. Nearly all the feedback was aerodynamic, and there was none of that in the departed Airbus.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Taz, I remember on the 777 program when we were discussing the flight deck configuration and controls. Airline customer reps at the meetings wanted nothing to do with side stick controls. They said that the captains wanted to have feel feedback AND when the copilot was flying he wanted to see what and where the yolk was.

 

Bob- Side sticks were very appropriate for military aircraft. Not sure about transport aircraft, because of no personal data. Most likely way above my competency level. Works great on an F-16 and even on a B-2A, but the missions are different and the crew members have different levels of workload. A debate worth highlighting. I liked the side stick on the F-16 and the three pilots on the B-2A on long missions love it, but those are the only conclusions I can draw from experience and actual discussions with aircrew members.

The last airplane I flew where you could really feel airloads through the stick was the F-4. The dampers on the F-111, F-15, CF-18 and F-16 prevented those airloads from being directly felt, but you got aerodynamic feedback from all of them. A new world out there.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

Taz-- I've never flown in the military, but I would guess that both the training program and, more importantly, the daily operating environment, provide more opportunities to keep up stick and rudder skills in all parts of the operating envelope than typical airline operations.

In this situation, I think that would have gone a long way.

 

On the first KC-135 and 707 they had a Q bellows that operated from a probe on the lower vertical fin that fed dynamic pressures into the bellows that transmitted the loads into the control system. It worked just fine. The greater the airspeed the greater the loads and the better the feel.

 

Bob- Affirmative, and I get the feeling the Boeing airliners still have some of that feel on the latest aircraft, including the 777 and 787. Feel is good, whether aerodynamic or through the flight controls. No feel equals no clue.

Taz
Terry Phillips

 

They do have a feel fed into the system but it is by a more sophisticated method now....computers.

 

Not much new information, but.....

http://news.yahoo.com/pilot-errors-outlined-2009-air-france-crash-102252489.html

Seems that they did not notice the altimeter unwinding and never announced to the passengers that anything was amiss.

 

Read elsewhere that the 'flying pilot' held the nose up despite stall warnings galore.

Only the PIC (not in the cockpit, on break) had ANY high altitude training.


Watch AF spend lots of effort trying to get some blame away from themselves.

 

I know that I'm an old throw back and not qualified to comment on the latest technology and techniques but I'm bowled over by some of the statements that I read regarding the lack of the pilots training experience in actually manually flying the airplane! I had in mind that the computerization was a back up to make things easier for the "airplane drivers". I use the word "driver" because it appears that is what is happening now. I have imagined myself in the cockpit of AF447 and seeing the airspeed drop and the auto whatever dropping off line and I can insure you that I would NOT HAVE PULLED THE STICK BACK with six miles of altitude under me. I still don't understand all of the stuff that went on but to keep yanking back on the stick for three minutes makes no sense to me. Here,again, they had no feel of what was happening with the airplane and they were inundated with conflicting info from multiple systems failing. This to me is evidence of a long string of design and training omissions long before the airplane took off.

 

If I remember correctly the original F-16 prototypes had a stick that was completely fixed and force sensors fed info into the fly by wire system. The test pilots didn't much care for it and the stick was changed so it would move.

 

Yup, you're right Bob.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Do I sense a bit of needling here? An overshoot on a rain slick runway, maybe. I know that flying has changed tremendously in the last 20 years and I'm not educated in most of it but I was pretty close to the flight training guys at Boeing and there was heavy emphasis on flying the airplane in all types of situations. Of course, there were not many computers involved in it, just pilots.

 

Looks like that 737 landed too fast and too far down the runway. I believe the runway was 7400 feet, which still should have been adequate. I also wonder if the anti-skid was functioning properly.

 

I think that's an A320.....I believe the 737 only has one emergency door over each wing.

Geffen