Air France 447 "What really happened"

[SAJ73]

It would seem like the pilots failed to perform standard speed and pitch procedure as they battled to stay wings level. Too much chaos in the cocpit probably made them overlook the engine thrust indicator level as they focused too much on their artificial horizon and solving other problems..

Dual stick inputs did not actually help, one pilot might have tried to gain airspeed and the other focused on keeping the nose high.. While none of them increased thrust.. Lack of proper training, and ontop of that lack of communication in the final minute of flight I think..

Pretty idiotic placed thrust indicators on that plane I might add, if it were placed up in view they might have noticed the problem and been able to solve it.. 

[icepac]

Whatever happened to using DME to find your groundspeed?

[Golfer]

Whatever happened to using DME to find your groundspeed?

Which DME signals would they be picking up in the middle of the ocean?

GPS and IRS.

The solution for what happened is fly a "that's about right" pitch attitude with a "that's about right" power setting and accept deviations from planned speed and altitude until such time you regain reliable instrument indication.

Throw in a thunderstorm, bells and chimes, warning messages, autoflight kicking off, a stall recovery technique inappropriate for the conditions of the airplanes control software and light shined intona big black hole overlooked by the training/experience of the crewmembers sitting there web this all happened and you have an accident.

They didn't do really anything right. The French (and Brazilian) way if doing things says point fingers and lay blame. Well that's on Air France and this crew.

The bigger question is "why?". And bigger yet "how do we prevent it?"

[icepac]

My point is that there are many devices that will read out plane speed.

[Golfer]

My point is that there are many devices that will read out plane speed.

Yeah. These guys had groundspeed information, GPS derived, right in front of them.

All the ADCs could have taken a dump at the same time and it shouldn't effect the outcome of the flight. All of these elements came together (weather, fatigue, disorientation, unreliable indications and an unfamiliar flight control mode) to kill what you would call an experienced crew during the least hazardous phase of flight.

This wasn't a single point failure by any stretch of the imagination and data they already had didn't seem to help them.

[Babalonian]

Oh please...

The airplane didn't kill anyone.

And how did you conclude that from my responce? 


But I do agree - the airplane itself didn't kill anyone - some idiotic, inexperieinced, half-hashed company with an equaly talented engineering, design and R&D departments - riding in on their horse and some unporven but sternly touted belief that the way they do things is the only and best way in the world to do them....  yeah, they did it, and I hope they don't do it again, but they probabley will unless they decide to change the way they do things for the way it should be and the way it's been getting done for generations already.

[PR3D4TOR]

That's a nonsensical statement.

[guncrasher]

How about physically? There is no stall buffet?

Every plane (Cessna 152, Cessna 172, T-37, T-38, KC-135) in which I have approached stall, there was obvious shaking that got more intense as the air separation increased. I've heard of some planes with no or little buffet having artificial shakers on the controls. I'm not talking about a horn. I'm talking about physics.

plane has no stall buffet it has a stall alarm. it clearly says that.  reasoning is because airplane was designed to not stall in normal law once the autopilot disconnected they were in alternate law in which the airplane could stall, but because of training they probably didnt know it.

but basically the airplane crashed because one of the copilots had pulled on the stick when the autopilot disengaged  trying to climb while thinking that the plane was not able to stall due to it being in normal law.  both pilots failed to realize that in alternate law you can stall the airplane, anyway towards the end one was pushiing down on the stick while the other was pulling up basically cancelling each other, not untill the end one took control by then it was too late as it tried to get speed to keep from crashing.

basically two co pilots not talking to each other and believing wrongly that their airplane could not stall.  it all comes back to training.





semp

[PR3D4TOR]

And how did you conclude that from my responce?  


But I do agree - the airplane itself didn't kill anyone - some idiotic, inexperieinced, half-hashed company with an equaly talented engineering, design and R&D departments - riding in on their horse and some unporven but sternly touted belief that the way they do things is the only and best way in the world to do them....  yeah, they did it, and I hope they don't do it again, but they probabley will unless they decide to change the way they do things for the way it should be and the way it's been getting done for generations already.

When it comes to experience there is little to choose between Airbus and Boeing. The only difference is that Boeing has had the same name the last century. When you fly in a new "Boeing" you're flying a BoeingMcDonnelDuglasGrummanNo rthAmericanPiaseckiStearmanAu toneticsDeHavillandAustralia. When you're flying in an "Airbus" you're actually in a DassaultBritishAeroSpaceSuper marineVickersArmstrongsMesser schmittBölkovBloomDornierFockeWulfHeinkelJunkersConstruccionesAeronáuticasAérospatialeMatra.

The Airbus' are actually distant relatives of the Spitfire, Bf109 and Fw190