Print

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

[tigers_gonads]

The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.

I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.

Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.

The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.

At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.

During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed.  The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?) 

The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain.  He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening.  He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.   

At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late.  The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing.  There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down.

French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.

The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.

At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick 

Sorry, I missed that point out.

The auto pilot had actually shut down.  When the external sensors became iced up, the instruments failed. Then followed a series of system warnings to the pilots, such as the one constantly warning of a "stall".  Apparently, the auto pilot then could not cope with the non-data and all the ignoring of warnings to the pilot and, as they are programmed to do, handed over control of the aircraft to the human air crew when the computer "decided" it could do no more.  Manual control was then in the hands of the pilots, who of course were panicking and making all the wrong decisions, taking the wrong actions, until the plane descended at high speed into the Atlantic.

The auto pilot therefore played no part in this series of human error, and eventual tragedy.

Nothing to be sorry about Liz 


The rest just about sums it up sadly.
Its becoming a sad fact that the basic skills in any job are being eroded by relience on technology.
Sadly the human race has become lazy with little or no common sense as we evolve 

Just give me my 3 pound lump hammer and chissle anyday 

[Lizzie_Zoom]

The A340 that was lost over the Atlantic was caused by pilot error.
Anybody who has ever flown any aircraft knows that if you get a stall warning, you push forward or at the very least, don't panic and pull back.
Imo, it was a case of modern day aircrew becoming too reliant on electronic toys and too much time in a simulator instead of the real thing.

I recently watched a documentary on the causes of that crash now the black box has been fully analyised.

Firstly the French Captain decided to fly directly into a very severe storm, that other planes that night flew around; a common practice apparently and pure common sense.

The said Captain then left the two co-pilots on board to cope with terrible conditions. One of those was very inexperienced, but he was the one allowed to take command of the aircraft.

At the point were the instruments failed due to the icing up of the sensors, the commanding pilot panicked, as did the other co-pilot, as they could not understand what was happening.

During this panic the aircraft went into a stall due to lack of speed, and the inexperienced pilot kept pushing the stick back without increasing engine speed.  The plane continued to fall, at, if I remember correctly 3,000 feet a minute (?) 

The aircraft was rapidly descending, and the other co-pilot went to wake the Captain.  He arrived on the flight deck and tried to work out what was happening.  He did not realise, until it was too late, that the commanding pilot had continued to push the stick back, instead of forward to speed the plane up as well as increasing engine speed.   

At their now lower altitude, the outside sensors thawed and started working, but by then it was just too late.  The Captain is heard shouting at the inexperienced co-pilot when he realised what he had been doing.  There was by now no altitude for corrective action, and the plane ploughed into the sea and went straight down.

French airline pilots have been retrained, as well as all others around the World being reminded about how special procedures must come into effect when "flying by wire" aircraft and if the instruments fail, requiring old fashioned pilot skills and knowledge to overcome.

The Captain exercised a dereliction of duty in his actions that night, but of course died with everyone else as a price.

At the end of the day Lizzie, the autopilot was flying the aircraft.
The co pilot was sat in the seat doing nothing more then monitoring the various systems while the captain was in the back having a sleep.
Yes, the stall warning sounded and because of this, the copilot took manual control of the aircraft and thats when the cockups started.
If your flying at 35000 feet then and your pitot heaters fail, then a pound to a penny you will get dodgy ASI readings but its still no excuse for PULLING back on the joystick 

Sorry, I missed that point out.

The auto pilot had actually shut down.  When the external sensors became iced up, the instruments failed. Then followed a series of system warnings to the pilots, such as the one constantly warning of a "stall".  Apparently, the auto pilot then could not cope with the non-data and all the ignoring of warnings to the pilot and, as they are programmed to do, handed over control of the aircraft to the human air crew when the computer "decided" it could do no more.  Manual control was then in the hands of the pilots, who of course were panicking and making all the wrong decisions, taking the wrong actions, until the plane descended at high speed into the Atlantic.

The auto pilot therefore played no part in this series of human error, and eventual tragedy.

Nothing to be sorry about Liz 


The rest just about sums it up sadly.
Its becoming a sad fact that the basic skills in any job are being eroded by relience on technology.
Sadly the human race has become lazy with little or no common sense as we evolve 

Just give me my 3 pound lump hammer and chissle anyday 

How true!

I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome.  It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says"   Humans must remain in control.

[Marks DTM Calib]

As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.

1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap

2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!

3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.

Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..

[Lizzie_Zoom]

As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.

1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap

2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!

3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.

Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..

Oh dear!    Not your luckiest period of travel then Mark

[tigers_gonads]

Try these Mark   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJxzDYJ4C3Y

[Entwood]

.......   big snip  ...

How true!

I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome.  It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says"   Humans must remain in control.

This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.

But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.

Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't (answer - usually a crash) ...

No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.

[aaronjb]

3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.

I'll second that! I flew back from Paris last Sunday using CDG and it's hands down the worst airport I've been through so far.. the BA check in desk is now hidden downstairs on 'level 0' between 2A and 2C with precious little signage (after a walk from the train between 2C & 2E to the end of 2A and back to 2C I wasn't best pleased) and then when I did get there and queue at the desk marked 'Bag Drop' I was unceremoniously, rudely and arrogantly (an attitude I found sadly all too prevalent in Paris!) asked "You want check in or transfer help?", "Bag drop" I said, "That line *points to check in*".. I may have cursed a little and mentioned the fact that the sign still says Bag drop, then stood in the other line for 20 minutes while they flailed about because the flight was delayed..

Bah. Anyway. Moving on.

[tigers_gonads]

Agree with that lot.
The days of the feel switch being tied up with a bit of "telltail wire" are long gone and with it the liney's getting a discrete crate of beer if the jocky had "just happened" to have accidently knocked it while snagging the fatgue meter 

At the end of the day, the airbus was at 35,000 ft plus and plodding along nicely.
On warning and disconection of the autopilot, the crew, instead of opening the throttles, maybe pushing the nose down a little and counting to 3 while taking stock of the situation paniced and by the time the captain managed to get his arse back into the cockpit and wake up it was too late 

Paris 1988  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBFG3_y6zIg

Remember Farnborough 86 and the A300 display.    Very impressive

[cem_devecioglu]

As somebody who does a lot of air travel both long and short haul (e.g. China last week, Brazil three weeks ago and Braxil again in two weeks), I have three rules.

1) Never use Ryanair, they truley are awful and treat you like crap

2) Never use Air FrChance, un-reliable isnt the word!

3) Never use Charles de Gaul airport, the staff are awful, the quality is awful, the chances of getting your baggage are low, the place is a dump.

Sadly last week I broke rule 1 and 2 which resulted in no bags in China, delayed flight out and rubbish seats on a 777 where most of the entertainment system didn't work..

come here .. you will make many "new" rules
 
you have been warned

[Lizzie_Zoom]

.......   big snip  ...

How true!

I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome.  It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says"   Humans must remain in control.

This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.

But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.

Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't (answer - usually a crash) ...

No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.

Agree Entwood.

I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight.  You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside.  I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire.  As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. 

[05omegav6]

Gerald Ratner and Michael o leary have alot in common. The only significant difference being that Mr Ratner at least admitted that his product was shyte

At least Easy Jet operates as a functioning AIRLINE rather than a piss poor third class bus service...

[Shackeng]

.......   big snip  ...

How true!

I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome.  It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says"   Humans must remain in control.

This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.

But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.

Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't (answer - usually a crash) ...

No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.

Agree Entwood.

I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight.  You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside.  I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire.  As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. 

I've not flown any of the Airbus family, and the last I operated was the Tristar (L1011), and you would perhaps be surprised how accurately the automatics ensure that the feel at the controls is correctly 'proportional' to the actual load on the respective control surface.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

.......   big snip  ...

How true!

I believe that is what the new training to fly by wire air crews is trying to overcome.  It is reminding those pilots that they must still use good judgement based on skill and experience, and not rely totally on "what the computer says"   Humans must remain in control.

This is somewhat of a tricky aspect with a fly-by-wire aircraft. The flight control computers have, planned in, deliberate "not exceed" parameters, as the simple joystick with no feedback would allow the pilots to do silly things, that older aircraft would simply not allow ... eg .. the pilot would not have enough strength to overcome the elevator force - with modern servo-dynes that is extremely simple to do.

But, where do you draw the line ?? A crash at the Paris Air Show many years back by an early FBW aircraft could have been avoided IF the computer had "allowed" the pilot to exceed the permitted "G" level by a mere 0.25g ..but the designers said "X is enough G" so the computer said no, and the aircraft failed to pull out of a low dive situation and hit the ground ... within the G limit of course .. but it wrecked the aircraft and killed the crew.

Do we allow the computers to "allow" a manouvre that might "break" the aircraft, or do we do other things ?? Older aircraft that had stall potential due to the way the servo-dynes worked, but did not have computers flying them - had things like "stick pushers" .. these would hydraulically push the stick forward when a stall was sensed, and no pilot had the strength to overcome them.... but what happens when a stick pusher operates when it shouldn't (answer - usually a crash) ...

No easy answers .. the Aviation industry has to learn from its mistakes .. that is why the Accident Investigation set up is so "in depth" and GOOD.

Agree Entwood.

I have had the good fortune to fly light aircraft, and I enjoy the "feel" of the aircraft in flight.  You are in contact with the machine, and through that the elements outside.  I find it difficult to imagine how you "feel" all that when flying by wire.  As you state Entwood it is all what the computer, and it's programme, wishes for you "feel", and cannot replicate the situation of the real thing, like pulling back to climb and feeling that pressure, let alone going into a descent then pulling back and "feeling" the resistance of air flow on elevators. 

I've not flown any of the Airbus family, and the last I operated was the Tristar (L1011), and you would perhaps be surprised how accurately the automatics ensure that the feel at the controls is correctly 'proportional' to the actual load on the respective control surface.

Ah right, thanks for that Shackeng!

[tigers_gonads]

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

[Sir Tigger KC]

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?