Air France A330 Missing

[Sooty655]

Both "black boxes" (DFDR and CVR) have been read successfully ~ apparently all data was intact including 2 hours on the CVR.

BBC report here.

BEA are promising an interim report "this summer".

[Mayfly]

Thanks for that - be interesting to see the results especially as they have the last two hours of voice recordings.

[Jigsaw]

That's incredible

[Sooty655]

BEA have issued the promised update here.

Sadly, it appears that the iced pitots were the only fault, and the crew were unable to prevent an otherwise servicable aircraft from literally falling out of the sky.

No doubt the fora will once again be full of arguments about automation and instrumentation. It certainly raises questions about autopilots suddenly "giving up" and handing control to pilots who are inadequately prepared for the situation.

[Dan4th]

What a Shame!

For Everyone on board.........

Is there anyone who could tell us what
they might have done otherwise??????

I know there are pilots on this forum.

Hard to second-guess, though.........

D.

[Sooty655]

Is there anyone who could tell us what
they might have done otherwise??????

I know there are pilots on this forum.

Hard to second-guess, though.........

D.

There have been two years and multiple threads of "second guessing" on PPRuNe, by qualified pilots, other industry professionals, and many trolls and lurkers. None of it has really moved things much beyond what was clear from the ACARS messages sent immediately before the crash.

I guess the final report, with a full analysis of the DFDR and CVR, is probably still a year away. I doubt if we will know much more until then.

My opinion, FWIW, is that no matter how carefully the crew are monitoring what the aircraft is doing under AP and AT, it is asking a hell of a lot to expect them to instantly take over, in turbulence, in the dark, with suspect instruments, when the computer decides it can't cope any more. In the past, the argument has been that there was plenty of time (=altitude) for the surprised crew to get it sorted. In this case a whopping 35000ft gave them around 200 seconds, which is no time at all.

[Dan4th]

What you're saying, then, is that by the
time the aircrew reacted it was already
too late........beyond recovery.

I hope some good comes out of this
eventually......

Danf.

[Sooty655]

What you're saying, then, is that by the
time the aircrew reacted it was already
too late........beyond recovery.

Not so much "by the time they reacted", more that they didn't realise (quickly enough) that their initial reaction wasn't the correct one.
In this case, it seems that they realised some instruments weren't reading correctly, but they may have actually ignored good indications thinking they were also bad.

I hope some good comes out of this
eventually......

Danf.

Amen to that.

[Sooty655]

The BEA have released an English version of their Interim Report No 3. It can take a while for the pdf download to get started ~ their website seems to be very busy at present.

The combined FDR/CVR (partial) transcript from pages 87 to 101 makes chilling reading.

[Mayfly]

Well I'm not sure if it doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't make sense, or if it doesn't make sense to me because it I don't understand it!!


Does that make sense?

[Xplumberlives]

Do you really expect an answer?

[Mayfly]

Not from you no! at a least a sensible one

[Xplumberlives]

Not from you no! at a least a sensible one

Your earlier post just reminded me of Donald Rumsfeld one time head of the US Department of Defense!


As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.

—Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing

[Sooty655]

Well I'm not sure if it doesn't make sense to me because it doesn't make sense, or if it doesn't make sense to me because it I don't understand it!!


Does that make sense?

There is certainly a lot of what they did which doesn't seem to make sense. The most chilling aspect is that they don't seem to have ever fully realised what the aircraft was doing.

Part of the problem with interpreting the reasons why they took their (strange) actions is that the FDR doesn't record what was actually showing on the instruments in front of the pf.

[MOD]

There is no Angle of Attack display??

[Sooty655]

There is no Angle of Attack display??

Offered as an option, and rejected by most airlines.

Apparently that applies to fbw Boeings as well as Airbus.

[Xplumberlives]

There is no Angle of Attack display??

Offered as an option, and rejected by most airlines.

Apparently that applies to fbw Boeings as well as Airbus.

Blimey, I hope that was for some good reason rather than to save a few Euros!

[Sooty655]

There is no Angle of Attack display??

Offered as an option, and rejected by most airlines.

Apparently that applies to fbw Boeings as well as Airbus.

Blimey, I hope that was for some good reason rather than to save a few Euros!

You imply there could be another good reason ~ methinks euros are the only reason (any) airline management would recognise these days.

[MOD]

For fs why? Here are 2 co-pilots who are left in charge by their Captain ( although their subsequent responsibilities are undefined ) just as the Auto pilot says (sorry guys I can't cope - you are on your own now ) and neither of them have had high altitude 'Manual' Training!! Why????

RIP all concerned.

[Dan4th]

I found this enlightening::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44324527/ns/business/

At least the "authorities" seem to be aware
of the problem.......

Danf.

[Sooty655]

I found this enlightening::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44324527/ns/business/

At least the "authorities" seem to be aware
of the problem.......

Danf.

I don't know if you ever read PPRuNe (Professional pilots rumour network, http://www.pprune.org), but this topic has been a perpetual rant on there for some years.

Some of it inevitably becomes part of the Airbus versus Boeing battle, because the style of automation employed by Airbus is seen as being more prone to "pilot dis-connect" than the Boeing approach.

However, most of the problem seems to come from the airlines, whose SOPs require the pilot to allow the computer to fly the airplane, because the computer burns less fuel than the pilot.

Most pilots with major airlines "fly" more hours in their routine simulator checks than they do in the air.

[Dan4th]

HA!

Well, Sullenberger was flying an Aeroboose and
HE had no problem "disconnecting" from the auto
controls!

Of course, he was never "disconnected" in the
same way that causes this syndrome.......

I personally believe that SOPs and Business As
Usual Attitudes are the biggest enemy of flight
safety, at least so far in the 21st Century.

Let's hope this gets dealt with, shall we?

Although I fear we haven't seen the last of this
kind of failure........

Danf.

[Sooty655]

The BEA final report is now available here.

The Conclusion, in the form of Findings and Causes (pages 197 to 201), don't tell us anything new, but they provide an excellent synopsis of how it went so very, very wrong.

[Ray C]

Wow ! Most major airline pilots spend more time simulator flying, than actual air time flaying .Does this mean the time will come when a (Raptor) "i think thats what it's called" type aircraft with a ground based pilot flies you to the states or Australia ? No fatigue risk, no cabin for the terrorist to break into & make demands to go here or there ?

Frightening ? or the shape of things to come ?

[Ducati Boy]

Hi Ray C,

Theres nothing inherently wrong with computers taking an aircraft from taxi through flight to stop at destination, providing there is human back-up, that is fairly normal.

The problem that concerns me is that with such systems being generally extremely reliable and fail safe, how are pilots to gain experience of rare and unusual failures?? Simulator time is very, very expensive, the bean counters have no doubt latched on to the economies to be made available from a lower standard of pilot training and therefore when failures do occur, the pilot may not, in future be adequately trained and practiced to recognise the correct reaction to warnings. That appears to be what happened in this sad case.

The remote control aircraft you mentioned is I believe the Predator.