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 Crash - Report out today

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
THE pilot of the Air France jet which plunged into the Atlantic in 2009 killing 228 people – including three Irish doctors - pushed the nose upward instead of downward during a stall because of false data from sensors, the father of a victim says.
Robert Soulas was briefed by French air accident investigators about their final report into the Airbus A330 crash.

He says investigators said the flight director system indicated "erroneous information" that the plane was diving downward, "and therefore to compensate, the pilot had a tendency to pull on the throttle to make it rise up".

Investigators had known the pilot nosed upward during the stall instead of down, which would have been the normal manoeuvre for stall recovery. But they did not know why.

The full report is due to be released later today, but a source told AFP that human error contributed to the crash in June 2009.

The judicial report – due to be presented to victims' families next week – has concluded that pilot error and malfunctioning speed sensors were responsible, the source said.
The ill-fated Airbus A330 aircraft flying from Rio de Janeiro to Paris in June 2009 disappeared after it ran into stormy weather with strong turbulence around four hours into the flight.

The women graduated together from the same class as doctors in surgery from Trinity College on June 15, 2007.

It took days before debris from the crash was located in the remote equatorial Atlantic Ocean area, and far longer until the wreckage was recovered.

The black boxes were finally located by robot submarines after a search spanning 23 months and costing about $40m.

A second report by the French aviation safety authority, BEA, is due to present its final report on the crash on Thursday. The paper is eagerly awaited amid a row between Airbus and Air France on who ultimately bears responsibility.

The source said the separate 356-page judicial report found that speed sensors froze up and failed, but also that the "captain had failed in his duties" and "prevented the co-pilot from reacting".

The aircraft had entered a zone of turbulence two hours into the flight when the autopilot suddenly disengaged, the BEA had said earlier.

Investigators revealed last year that Captain Marc Dubois was on a break as his two less experienced co-pilots ignored and failed to discuss repeated stall warnings during the three and a half minutes it took the Airbus A330 to plunge into the ocean.

All 228 people on board – including crew – died after the Airbus hurtled into the Atlantic at a speed of 180 feet a second in the worst disaster in Air France's history.

French magistrates are investigating Air France and Airbus for alleged manslaughter in connection with the crash, notably because of the malfunctioning speed sensors, known as Pitots.

The airline replaced the Pitots, manufactured by French company Thales, on its Airbus planes with a newer model after the crash.

Victims' families have previously alleged that the involvement of big French corporations such as Airbus and Air France was influencing the affair.

- INDEPENDENT.IE REPORTERS
 
Excuse the ignorance, I've never flown an Airbus product...

In the event where you're not sure just WTF the auto-throttles are doing, is there a way to disengage them and nail them to the stops (max forward power) regardless of what FiFi wants to do with them?

Kind of like a "through the gate" for aircraft so-equipped...?
 
If you pull on the stick until it coughs at that infamous corner and maintain the stick there for the duration, I don't think max power will do you any good. I think I read on the FDR transcripts that max power was applied
 
I think it was, too, but not until later in the event if memory serves. I'd have to go over it again, but that was the question, if I'm in an Airbus and I shove the thrust levers / throttles / whatever up to the max detent and leave them there, does FiFi set whatever power she thinks is appropriate, or will it go to max and stay there?

More a curiosity question than anything else, as I agree with you, putting the aircraft into a stall and leaving the nose yanked back isn't going to do anything but make the ground get bigger at an alarming rate.

There but for the grace of God go I. :(
 
if I'm in an Airbus and I shove the thrust levers / throttles / whatever up to the max detent and leave them there, does FiFi set whatever power she thinks is appropriate, or will it go to max and stay there?

It will go to max power. On the Airbus you can always disconnect auto-thrust and use them just like throttles unless there was a specific failure related to the thrust levers or engines.
 
If you are in a deep stall and holding full aft elevator applying Max thrust isn't going to do Jack Sh#t....Flying 101, in a fully developed stall you absolutely have to reduce the angle of attack (lower the nose). I think airline pilots are rarely trained to recover from anything beyond a stall buffet these days. So we get used to just powering our way through and most training programs emphasize maintaining altitude throughout the recovery. In a deep stall trying to maintain altitude will just make the problem worse
 
Something else to consider. An engine at FL380 produces only a fraction of the thrust it would produce at sea level. So thrust alone wouldn't be nearly enough to reduce the angle of attack below the critical angle
 
If you are in a deep stall and holding full aft elevator applying Max thrust isn't going to do Jack Sh#t....Flying 101, in a fully developed stall you absolutely have to reduce the angle of attack (lower the nose). I think airline pilots are rarely trained to recover from anything beyond a stall buffet these days. So we get used to just powering our way through and most training programs emphasize maintaining altitude throughout the recovery. In a deep stall trying to maintain altitude will just make the problem worse

Yep. It's more like recovery from "slow flight" in a Cessna. Maybe this and Buffalo should have us doing real stalls. I don't know. Seems like the recovery from the shaker is what you need to do close to the ground, and recover from deep stall to train for what can happen at altitude.
 
I noticed this quote from the final report over at PPrune:

Page 206
4.2.1 Recommendations on Operations
Training for Manual Aircraft Handling
Examination of their last training records and check rides
made it clear that the copilots had not been trained for manual aeroplane handling
of approach to stall and stall recovery at high altitude.

Might as well put that on each passenger's tombstone.
 
Okay...as usual the media has no clue whatsoever.

The final report may not be out offically, but the reason for the crash is well known as of several months ago.

In short, it was an Airbus and the inputs from the control sticks are unlike "normal" aircraft in that one pilot can be doing something that gives no visual input to the other.

The F/O, it was revealed by the CVR, was applying full aft stick ( abating any chance at stall recovery ) all the way to the water. Unbeknownst to the Captain or the ACM.

Had it been a conventional aircraft, the other Crewmembers would have seen the copilot with the yoke pulled back to his gut and quickly corrected the situation many thousands of feet above the water/impact.

Read the transcripts for yourself...it's pretty messed up.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tec...really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877


YKW
 
Last edited:
Or, if you don't care to read the whole article...here's the last part/short version. ( Bonin is the Copilot. )



" As the plane approaches 10,000 feet, Robert tries to take back the controls, and pushes forward on the stick, but the plane is in "dual input" mode, and so the system averages his inputs with those of Bonin, who continues to pull back. The nose remains high.

02:13:40 (Robert) Remonte... remonte... remonte... remonte...
Climb... climb... climb... climb...

02:13:40 (Bonin) Mais je suis à fond à cabrer depuis tout à l'heure!
But I've had the stick back the whole time!

At last, Bonin tells the others the crucial fact whose import he has so grievously failed to understand himself.

02:13:42 (Captain) Non, non, non... Ne remonte pas... non, non.
No, no, no... Don't climb... no, no.

02:13:43 (Robert) Alors descends... Alors, donne-moi les commandes... À moi les commandes!
Descend, then... Give me the controls... Give me the controls!

Bonin yields the controls, and Robert finally puts the nose down. The plane begins to regain speed. But it is still descending at a precipitous angle. As they near 2000 feet, the aircraft's sensors detect the fast-approaching surface and trigger a new alarm. There is no time left to build up speed by pushing the plane's nose forward into a dive. At any rate, without warning his colleagues, Bonin once again takes back the controls and pulls his side stick all the way back.

02:14:23 (Robert) Putain, on va taper... C'est pas vrai!
Damn it, we're going to crash... This can't be happening!

02:14:25 (Bonin) Mais qu'est-ce que se passe?
But what's happening?

02:14:27 (Captain) 10 degrès d'assiette...
Ten degrees of pitch...

Exactly 1.4 seconds later, the cockpit voice recorder stops.
 
Okay...as usual the media has no clue whatsoever.

The final report may not be out offically, but the reason for the crash is well known as of several months ago.

In short, it was an Airbus and the inputs from the control sticks are unlike "normal" aircraft in that one pilot can be doing something that gives no visual input to the other.

The F/O, it was revealed by the CVR, was applying full aft stick all the way to the water. Unbeknownst to the Captain or the ACM.

Had it been a conventional aircraft, the other Crewmembers would have seen the copilot with the yoke pulled back to his gut and quickly corrected the situation many thousands of feet above the water/impact.

Read the transcripts for yourself...it's pretty messed up.


YKW

I have, and I agree with you up to a point, there is more here than the fact that the pilot monitoring couldn't see control movement, I believe one of the problems here is that as somebody mentioned there is only training of an approach to a stall in a departure scenario, it is emphasize that you should apply max power and ride the shaker, training that over and over again is causing people to associate the shaker with that recovery maneuver, we have had too many examples of pilots doing the same thing when confronted with a stall, the Colgan accident, a West Carribean MD80 I think it was that crashed in Venezuela, the Pinncle crash, the 757 off the coast of Puerto Plata back in 96, there are many other stalls that were recovered thus never made the news, that the recovery was done late in the event and the initial action the crews took was to ride the shaker and apply max power while at altitude, all these other cases were conventional cases where the pilot monitoring had a control column in front of him and could see the control inputs, I believe there are training/ behavioral issues at play here as well.
 
Very good point. Totally agreed it may have been a contributing factor, although ultimately not the cause.

I have been quietly ranting about this since I began 121 flying many years ago.

I believe I asked my first Instructor in my first real 121 Ground School " Well, shouldn't we lower the nose a tad to decrease AOA also? "

I got the "Who farted, what-the-hell-do-you-know-Probie..? " look.

It was then that I realized.... Airline Operating Manuals and Federal Regulations supercede the Laws of Physics, The Universe, and Common Sense.

:)


Pull to the shaker. All the way to the trees ( or water ). Right. Got it!

YKW
 
Last edited:
It's amazing how far behind the power curve they became. You would think that with engines that size that at some lower altitude you would have seen some performance gain at max thrust. Very sad.
 
they are averaged in all laws. If one pilot goes full left and the other full right the plane will remain wings level. Same in pitch. there is a takeover switch that allows you to cancel the other input. But in the heat of the moment it could be easy to forget. Also the problem with the airbus is you can't see the other pilot's input. Unlike a Boeing where both control columns will move from one pilot's input.
 
BINGO.

"...there is a takeover switch that allows you to cancel the other input....with the airbus... you can't see the other pilot's input. Unlike a Boeing where both control columns will move from one pilot's input."

So....you can't see what is happening with the other person's input with the stick/yoke ( at night, in the dark, in this case ) and therefore, one doesn't even have the knowledge that they should implement this "takeover switch".

Poor design.

Again, in a "real" aircraft.....As the upset/stall began at Cruise, the erroneous inputs would have been recognized immediately / visually by the Captain/ACM as the F/O would have hauled the yoke back into his gut.

They might have lost a few thousand feet, and recovered in the Flight Levels....Most likely just a few thousand feet below Cruise after the initial upset/confusion.

Not so with the Bus, and things that don't move correspondingly, and the " Laws of Averages" .

A shame.

But, as Marie Antoinette said...." Let them eat cake."


YKW
 
Last edited:
I would think this would be an easy fix. At least an amber alert on the ECAM.

there is a warning, It screams at you " DUAL INPUT !! " ( enough with the jokes)

Also, Stall recovery in the airbus has changed. You are now instructed to lower the nose, decrease the bank angle, and gain airspeed. Basically forget what you were ever taught.
 
ATP standards for stall recovery: "Recovers to a reference airspeed, altitude and heading with minimal loss of altitude, airspeed, and heading deviation."

Commercial standards for stall recovery: "Recognizes and recovers promptly as the stall occurs by simultaneously reducing the angle of attack, increasing power to maximum allowable, and leveling the wings to return to a straightand-level flight attitude, with a minimum loss of altitude appropriate for the airplane."


We teach people to try not to lose altitude during stall recovery. Seems crazy when you realize how much altitude is required to recover from a high altitude stall in a transport category airplane.
 
I have to say he's exactly right (something I've mentioned before on this forum about the design of the Airbus that I simply do not like as a pilot).

Was the F/O in error pulling the stick back the whole time? Absolutely. Would it have happened in a Boeing? Highly, highly unlikely. With the yoke crushing the IRO's crotch, it would have been painfully obvious (excuse the pun) that he was pulling back too far to recover the aircraft.

As soon as the F/O told the other two what he'd been doing the whole time (full back stick), the Captain immediately recognized what had been happening. The IRO realized it too after the Captain pointed it out, but too late to recover the aircraft.

I know a lot of people on here love Airbus and for the most part they have a good safety record, but there are several accidents that, in all likelihood, wouldn't have happened in a Boeing because of the way the flight control system is designed. Are there Boeing accidents that wouldn't have happened in an Airbus? Sure. But the point, like the man said, is how do we make sure it doesn't happen again?

Give me ONE good reason why they shouldn't, as a safety issue, build force-feedback into the stick mechanisms through a basic servo that makes them act in tandem... Besides money, give me one good reason why not.

I'd argue that a few hundred million is worth 228 lives from this accident, and who knows how many possible saved in the future.
 
For the most part Boeing (and other aircraft with yokes) has a good safety record. How do we stop pilots from pulling back when airspeed bleeds off (or from lining up on the wrong runway?)
 
Interesting info about the dude in the video...
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/world/europe/france-air-crash-report/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/18/richard-quest-cnn-reporte_n_97466.html :eek:

CNN personality Richard Quest was busted in Central Park early yesterday with some drugs in his pocket, a rope around his neck that was tied to his genitals, and a sex toy in his boot, law-enforcement sources said.[...]

Quest was initially busted for loitering, the source said. Aside from the oddly configured rope, the search also turned up a sex toy inside of his boot, and a small bag of methamphetamine in his left jacket pocket.
It wasn't immediately clear what the rope was for.
 
Last edited:
A friend that I gave OE back in the day is now an RTC on the 320, he gave me a good explanation about pilots developing a false sense of security on the bus with all this protections that are built into the contraption, he tells me that he sees a trend of people even knowing that they are on alternate law (I think that is the phrase he used) but still they don't have a good comprehension that the airplane has no protections at those times, it seems that in the process of making a pilot proof airplane, they have created many other problems with the interphase between humans and the equipment. I like the 76, is an airplane design for a dumb pilot like me.
 
We teach people to try not to lose altitude during stall recovery. Seems crazy when you realize how much altitude is required to recover from a high altitude stall in a transport category airplane.
In my last CQ, we did a high-altitude stall and recovery, a la AF447. It was training at this point, and the instructor had us just sit with the yoke in our laps (Boeing, of course) and watch the world go by for a while. It was some of the more valuable time I've spent in the sim in the last few years.

I think this was driven by our training department, not the FAA. Even the training department at my old regional finally realized that the "with minimal loss of altitude" did not mean "no altitude loss." Sounds like the feds need to wake up.
 
Different stalls for different scenarios . . . . The minimm altitude loss technique is usually an approach stall or a departure stall; not much altitude to lose.

A High-altitude stall is something else entirely and should be practiced in the sim as well. I have flown with a surprising number of pilots who have never hand-flown at FL410 . . . . Not hard to do when it's smooth and you're light, but when you're at the max altitude in moderate or severe turbulence, it's a different animal. Even the engines don't respond as you might think.
 
Well, at least as of my last PT a month or so ago, Southwest does stall recoveries different than we used to. We used to go to emergency thrust and "relax" back pressure, and essentially just ride it out, with "minimal" altitude loss, exactly as you all describe. Now, our procedures are different, and they're emphasizing this change in the simulator. Now it's lower the nose specifically to increase airspeed, and power addition is secondary. Altitude loss is less important. (However, it's still done at the shaker, so it's more an "approach to stall.") It's more like how you learned in little airplanes, and obviously a change attributable to that Air France crash, seeing as how we did it at high altitude. I'm assume all the other training departments are doing the same thing; our guy said the change was FAA-driven.

On another note, we once did a full stall in a military 707 for training, and didn't recover until it looked like we might start to spin. However, we applied the same recovery technique that everyone here learned back in the day, and damn if the thing didn't recover just like a Cessna 152. Quite the exciting ride, I might add. I guess that sh1t really works. :)

Bubba
 

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom