Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie_Zoom]

I've never flown a plane and know very little about aviation, but I'd have thought that even though it might be the wrong thing to do in certain circumstances, pulling back the joystick would be instinctive in a dive situation? 

A bit like braking on ice? 

Yes, but the inexperienced co-pilot in this case was panicking, and in his mind was thinking he could stop the apparent (which originally was not true) fall in altitude. By pulling back he of course worsened the problem, as the "Stall" warnings started, and at that point if he had been thinking correctly he should have pushed forward to start a dive in which speed could have been increased with the engine revs increased to boost speed still further.  Apparently the ironic thing was that originally there was no fall of speed as the engines were still pushing out the same power as before.  But as said the co-pilots panicked and did all the wrong things at the wrong time as they had no instrument readings to confirm air speed, but had altitude readings showing a fall, thus believing speed had fallen, exasperated by pulling back on the control stick, which worsened the problem continually until time ran out.

It was a confusing mess for pilots relying totally on their instruments instead of using skill and experience, although the co-pilot in command lacked that, and the Captain who had it stayed asleep until he was woken for too late into the proceedings.

A very tragic affair illuminating human frailty.

[05omegav6]

Being at night and in poor weather they were reliant on their instruments, (as was the flight computer). But rather than standing back and taking stock of the situation they reacted to the first instrument they saw and then panicked. The computer probably told them that summat was out of sorts, and they did the rest, entirely the crews fault, they weren't the first, and they'll probably not be the last

I vaguely recall a similar situation involving a 757 flying at night from Chile to the States. The aircraft had just been washed, and the ground crew had left the pitot tubes covered. The captain failed to notice this on his preflight checks and off they went. It soon became apparent that something wasn't right, with different readings on either side of the cockpit. They contacted ATC, who confirmed that the data in front of the Co pilot was sound. But the flight computer took its information from the Pilots instruments. They couldn't quite understand this, thinking that the computer was right even though the readings didn't match what ATC had told them. They got a bit wrapped up in this, and flew an otherwise servicable and perfectly functioning aircraft into the Pacific. The first warning they had, (because they were distracted and had failed to notice the Copilots altimeter dropping, having discounted it as faulty), was the Ground Radar triggering a Terrain Warning just before they hit the sea

They had options open to them, such as contacting Air Traffic for a true picture of their airspeed, direction and altitude. This would have then given them something to work with. The computer has failsafes which ensure the the pilot always has control, but a bit like the ASR system that Mercedes use, it can be muted, but it will only let you get away with so much. That aircraft would have probably cruised all they way to North Africa/Europe with the controls configured as they were. But as soon as they panicked and pulled the nose up, the computer fought back and tried to level the aircraft, each time it would have lost altitude and we all know what happened next.

That really would have been the flight from hell, every soul on board being awake to the end

The servo assistance of the flight controls is, as Shackeng said, a very considered thing. The joystick is very positive when live, requiring a measured hand, the system that Boeing use is essentially the same, but with a more traditional look and feel to it. If anything the Boeing system feels 'stiffer', but is designed for two handed operation, (although in reality, any well balanced aircraft can be flown with one finger).

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Being at night and in poor weather they were reliant on their instruments, (as was the flight computer). But rather than standing back and taking stock of the situation they reacted to the first instrument they saw and then panicked. The computer probably told them that summat was out of sorts, and they did the rest, entirely the crews fault, they weren't the first, and they'll probably not be the last

I vaguely recall a similar situation involving a 757 flying at night from Chile to the States. The aircraft had just been washed, and the ground crew had left the pitot tubes covered. The captain failed to notice this on his preflight checks and off they went. It soon became apparent that something wasn't right, with different readings on either side of the cockpit. They contacted ATC, who confirmed that the data in front of the Co pilot was sound. But the flight computer took its information from the Pilots instruments. They couldn't quite understand this, thinking that the computer was right even though the readings didn't match what ATC had told them. They got a bit wrapped up in this, and flew an otherwise servicable and perfectly functioning aircraft into the Pacific. The first warning they had, (because they were distracted and had failed to notice the Copilots altimeter dropping, having discounted it as faulty), was the Ground Radar triggering a Terrain Warning just before they hit the sea

They had options open to them, such as contacting Air Traffic for a true picture of their airspeed, direction and altitude. This would have then given them something to work with. The computer has failsafes which ensure the the pilot always has control, but a bit like the ASR system that Mercedes use, it can be muted, but it will only let you get away with so much. That aircraft would have probably cruised all they way to North Africa/Europe with the controls configured as they were. But as soon as they panicked and pulled the nose up, the computer fought back and tried to level the aircraft, each time it would have lost altitude and we all know what happened next.

That really would have been the flight from hell, every soul on board being awake to the end

The servo assistance of the flight controls is, as Shackeng said, a very considered thing. The joystick is very positive when live, requiring a measured hand, the system that Boeing use is essentially the same, but with a more traditional look and feel to it. If anything the Boeing system feels 'stiffer', but is designed for two handed operation, (although in reality, any well balanced aircraft can be flown with one finger).

Are you stating that in context of the Air France flight?

Not sure if you are, but if so the Air France flight had entered the "dead zone" in the middle of the South Atlantic and was out of radio contact with either the USA or Africa / European ATC's.  It was also not within radar range of both, hence the mystery surrounding what had happened and where until the black box was recovered from the sea bed.

[05omegav6]

Fair point Lizzie, but other air traffic might have helped to shed some light on their situation. Can't believe that they didn't have radio contact with their operations department, assuming there was someone there of course...

Not that far (relatively) from Ascension or Cape Verde either

Either way the crew failed to take stock of their situation before doing anything. The aircraft was behaving perfectly normally before they panicked.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

Fair point Lizzie, but other air traffic might have helped to shed some light on their situation. Can't believe that they didn't have radio contact with their operations department, assuming there was someone there of course...

Not that far from Ascension either

Either way the crew failed to take stock of their situation before doing anything. The aircraft was behaving perfectly normally before they panicked.

That about sums it all up perfectly al

[Shackeng]

The problem is that, the airbus 320 onwards all have a sidestick with very little movement.
Its basiclly a computer gameing joystick.

The old tristar was 60's tech with a artifical mechanical feel iirc

Yep, and it worked very well.

For those of a technical bent who would like to read more informed opinion on the AF447 330 crash, I commend PPrunes many threads on the subject., starting here I think: http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/376433-af447.html