Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Air france pilots getting the blame

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

DUBLINFLYER

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 6, 2006
Posts
395
This is an article from the Irish Independent today

Pilots 'to blame' for air crash that killed doctors


By John Lichfield in Paris

Wednesday May 18 2011

Pilot error is emerging as the most likely cause of the crash of the Air France Rio-Paris airbus which plunged into the south Atlantic in June 2009, killing all 228 people on board.
The dead included three Irish doctors: Jane Deasy (27), from Rathgar, Co Dublin; Dr Eithne Walls (28), from Ballygowan, Co Down; and Dr Aisling Butler (26), from Roscrea, Co Tipperary.
Preliminary investigations of black-box flight recorders, which were found three miles down in the ocean last month, suggest there was no major technical failure in the Airbus A330.
Separately, it emerged that investigators believe the senior pilot may have been absent from the cockpit when the aircraft dived into the ocean four hours into its flight.
His absence was not, in itself, unusual. There were two less-experienced pilots aboard.
The accident occurred when severe tropical storms lay directly in the aircraft's path. One of the mysteries of flight AF447 is why the pilots flew directly into the eye of the storm. Other flights over the south Atlantic that day steered around the bad weather.
A malfunction in speed recording equipment is thought to have contributed to the aircraft's demise. But this alone is not thought capable of having caused the aircraft to crash.
Air France reacted angrily yesterday to suggestions the blame was moving away from Airbus. "At the present stage of the investigation, nothing points to either the responsibility, or the freedom from blame, of either of the principal actors," Air France said.
In an internal message to staff, the director general of Air France, Pierre-Henri Gourgeon, said "rumours" about pilot error were an attack on the "memory of our pilots". "I have total confidence in their professionalism," he added.
Fault
However, earlier in the day Airbus issued a message to all its customers stating that preliminary deciphering of the black boxes indicated there was no reason to make "any new recommendations" on the safe operation of other A330 aircraft. In other words, the black boxes had not shown any major fault that could explain the accident.
The French newspaper 'Le Figaro' reported earlier that Airbus had been cleared by the first examinations of the flight recorders by the French accident investigation unit. It said the investigation was now concentrating on what the flight recorders might reveal about the performance of the pilots.
It emerged that the captain of the Airbus, Marc Dubois, is believed to have been taking his rest period when the plane crashed.
On a long flight, it is standard for the captain to fly the first leg and then take his rest.
- John Lichfield in Paris
Irish Independent
 
"Two less experienced pilots at the controls...."

Have they also adopted the charade of not having a fully qualified captain in front at all times? A captain who has actually been through a full captain upgrade course and is subject to the more frequent evals? Not like an IRO who got a left seat taxi 15 years ago for his type rating.
 
"Two less experienced pilots at the controls...."

Have they also adopted the charade of not having a fully qualified captain in front at all times? A captain who has actually been through a full captain upgrade course and is subject to the more frequent evals? Not like an IRO who got a left seat taxi 15 years ago for his type rating.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. Many airlines (including Delta) use 2 F/O's and 1 CA for a 3 man-crew. Flights over 12 hrs are double-crewed (2 CA's and 2 FO's.) Nothing inherently unsafe about 2 F/O's in the flight deck at cruise. We are fully qualified and typed and have gone through the same training as CA's. The only difference is seniority numbers and, of course, pay rates.
 
Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. Many airlines (including Delta) use 2 F/O's and 1 CA for a 3 man-crew. Flights over 12 hrs are double-crewed (2 CA's and 2 FO's.) Nothing inherently unsafe about 2 F/O's in the flight deck at cruise. We are fully qualified and typed and have gone through the same training as CA's. The only difference is seniority numbers and, of course, pay rates.

Or 1 CA, 1 IRO (a type rated FO), and 2FO's.
 
No, not anywhere close Skippy.

Failure messages vice exceeding a flight envelope message, big difference, think about it.
 
Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. Many airlines (including Delta) use 2 F/O's and 1 CA for a 3 man-crew. Flights over 12 hrs are double-crewed (2 CA's and 2 FO's.) Nothing inherently unsafe about 2 F/O's in the flight deck at cruise. We are fully qualified and typed and have gone through the same training as CA's. The only difference is seniority numbers and, of course, pay rates.

Not being sarcastic. At one airline they are NOT "fully qualified" in a captain upgrade course, nor are they subject to additional evals or any required line checks, as captains are. They are FOs who got a type-rated 15 years ago.

Here's the test. When the FO/IRO upgrades to the left seat do they have to go to a captain upgrade course? Yes? Why? If they're qualified to fly as a captain then when they're awarded captain then they should be able to simply put on 4 stripes and report to work the next day as a captain. No? Then the airline shouldn't pass them off as captains and the FAA shouldn't allow it.
 
Not sure if you're being sarcastic here or not. Many airlines (including Delta) use 2 F/O's and 1 CA for a 3 man-crew. Flights over 12 hrs are double-crewed (2 CA's and 2 FO's.) Nothing inherently unsafe about 2 F/O's in the flight deck at cruise. We are fully qualified and typed and have gone through the same training as CA's. The only difference is seniority numbers and, of course, pay rates.

And experience
 
Not being sarcastic. At one airline they are NOT "fully qualified" in a captain upgrade course, nor are they subject to additional evals or any required line checks, as captains are. They are FOs who got a type-rated 15 years ago.

Here's the test. When the FO/IRO upgrades to the left seat do they have to go to a captain upgrade course? Yes? Why? If they're qualified to fly as a captain then when they're awarded captain then they should be able to simply put on 4 stripes and report to work the next day as a captain. No? Then the airline shouldn't pass them off as captains and the FAA shouldn't allow it.

At Delta the training is the same. We don't have a designated IRO category. 9-month CQ training events with a CA paired with an F/O. Exact same standards, MV, LOE. I'm not sure what happens when someone upgrades in the same aircraft.

Are you suggesting we crew every 8hr+ international flight with 3 CA's and 0 F/O's?
 
I just love it when the media assume that as an F/O, we have "less experience" than a four striper. I've flown many times in which I've had more experience, more total time, and more time in equipment than my captain.

Unfortunately, he still got the "more money" part...
 
At Delta the training is the same. We don't have a designated IRO category. 9-month CQ training events with a CA paired with an F/O. Exact same standards, MV, LOE. I'm not sure what happens when someone upgrades in the same aircraft.

Are you suggesting we crew every 8hr+ international flight with 3 CA's and 0 F/O's?

Kudos to Delta. Really. That sounds better than another major which has different eval frequencies for CAs and FO/IROs.

I'm suggesting that one IRO trips require a CA IRO. Two IRO trips require one of them to be a CA. All IROs used to be CAs. One actual fully and qualified CA should be on the deck at all times. The flying public deserves it. Once the media finally figures out this collusive FAA-airline agreement it will change quickly, just like the one-guy-in-the-tower issue recently.
 
I just love it when the media assume that as an F/O, we have "less experience" than a four striper. I've flown many times in which I've had more experience, more total time, and more time in equipment than my captain. part...
It's not about experience. It is about perception as you say, but also about the degradation of the profession. All IROs being captain floats everyone's boat higher.
 
I'm sure it was a matter of the crew ordering Brie de Meaux and the F/As brought Brie de Melun. The captain had to go to the galley to sort it out while the ensuing 'heated discussion' between the two remaining crewmembers resulted in a complete loss of situational awareness.
 
Really, most FOs have not been CAs??? What world do you live in?? Sorry back on topic...way to easy to blame dead pilots and not recognize a possible design flaw. RIP
 
No. A CA has been an FO. Most FOs have not been CAs. A 3 person crew requires 2 CAs.

I would have to disagree. You only need one Captain, the person that makes the final decisions regarding the flight. All three pilots are fully qualified to fly the airplane. At my airline all FO's are typed. Each leg the FO's swap from IRO to FO. If decisions besides basic flying, change altitude, etc. need to be made, you get the Captain to the flight deck so he can, well PIC! What happens when on a two-man aircraft the captain gets out to take a leak? here you have two fully qualified pilots on the flight deck and the captain seconds away if needed. In the case of the B747-400, he is in the bunk room on the flight deck!
 
Really, most FOs have not been CAs??? What world do you live in?? Sorry back on topic...way to easy to blame dead pilots and not recognize a possible design flaw. RIP
You're right. Crazy statement. Should have said that most FOs at a major have never been through CA upgrade training on the equipment they're flying.
 
I would have to disagree. You only need one Captain, the person that makes the final decisions regarding the flight. deck!
If in the Air France accident the one and only captain was in the back, the media is going to report "only/just copilots were at the controls." The court of public opinion will take care of the rest of it.
 
question for moderator.

Why is Air France considered suitable for the majors forum yet Emirates is not? AF does not employ american pilots yet EK has several hundred.
 
Really, most FOs have not been CAs??? What world do you live in?? Sorry back on topic...way to easy to blame dead pilots and not recognize a possible design flaw. RIP
My goal isn't to blame the pilots. My goal is to get CAs back as IROs. It's one of the few things that might provide some upward movement for junior folks during the current seniority stagnation.
 
I would have to disagree. You only need one Captain, the person that makes the final decisions regarding the flight. All three pilots are fully qualified to fly the airplane. At my airline all FO's are typed. Each leg the FO's swap from IRO to FO. If decisions besides basic flying, change altitude, etc. need to be made, you get the Captain to the flight deck so he can, well PIC! What happens when on a two-man aircraft the captain gets out to take a leak? here you have two fully qualified pilots on the flight deck and the captain seconds away if needed. In the case of the B747-400, he is in the bunk room on the flight deck!

would you really wake a captain up from his rest to ask if you could for example climb from FL340 to FL360?
 
We have no way of knowing the qualifications of the F/O and the IRO who were on deck at the time of the accident. If it comes out they were some new-hire 500 hour wunderkids (if memory serves, AirFrance still does ab-initio from zero to airline pilot like the rest of Europe), then sure, slam away on the fact that there wasn't a qualified CA on the flight deck.

However, if they were like most U.S. airlines where often-times the F/O is more qualified in terms of flight hours, type ratings, overall experience than the CA (it happens all the time), then it really becomes less of a factor. At some point early in your flying experience you learn to go around the big red and purple blobs on that little screen in front of you. There are few reasons obviously apparent why they didn't do so.

As for the ACARS burst messages, from memory of that thread last year, I think the vast majority of them happened in a VERY short time period, all on top of each other and I remember thinking it sounded like a double flameout followed by the aircraft coming apart shortly thereafter before the antenna lost power and/or data feed.

You have to hope, just for the sake of the families, that SOMETHING comes up that makes it a situation where the flight crew wouldn't have been able to see what was coming. If not,,, :(
 
would you really wake a captain up from his rest to ask if you could for example climb from FL340 to FL360?

No, not at all! I would classify that as basic flying decisions, such as my example. Common sense has to prevail here! My point, 1 CA and 2 FO's is more than qualified to fly one them there big airplanes......

Sometimes too many Kings in the Castle has bad deal written all over it!
 
I have suggested since the beginning that it was a inexperienced crew up front while the more senior were resting that lead to the demise of AF447. At many major airlines around the world, only experienced pilots are hired yet at a lot of European, Indian, and Asian carriers, the ab-initio pilot is brought through the ranks because of a corrupt selection process or good grade sheets. Both of which don't necessarily guarantee competent aviators. Even if the FO/ IRO up front had high time, a majority of it since their ab-initio training was probably in cruise flight. Their experience is the database they would be using for judgement, if they gained that via an ab-initio program and then a rather benign career in cruise flight, then they lacked the background to safely navigate around such weather. IMO, they mis-judged the storms and ended up sending the aircraft into a path of danger. Without a stout background of aviating, they would lack the knowledge needed to consider the severity of the storms they were threading through.

By the time the Captain realized there was a problem it would've been too late.

Which is why the MPL is a disaster waiting to happen. In India there are 220 hr pilots in the right seat of a B737. With a competent skipper that may work but pair them up with a weak commander, through in fatigue, bad weather, and an abnormality and they're quickly over their head. Airliners shouldn't be piloted by low-time pilots. There is just too much liability and responsibility and no amount of automation produced by Honeywell, Boeing and Airbus can dumb down the challenge when the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

Of course, this is just the way I see it. But I have flown with very experienced high-time pilots in airliners as well as low-time ab-initio types. The difference between the two is glaringly obvious. It's not a slight to low-time pilots, we were all there once. But the system should/ must change and it is the reason why hiring minimums are being legally raised in the US. The Colgan crash had many of the same experience issue, or lack thereof.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom