Air France Crash - Report out today

[dicko]

Regarding the Airbus design flaws -

Can anybody remember a respected operator that has crashed one due to pilot error ? No, Air France is not a respected operator in terms of their flight crews and training.

A Qantas A330 and a Northwest A330 had exactly the same problem as the Air France A330. In both cases the problem was solved with little fuss and certainly not a hull loss.

The Airbus could be improved; Sidesticks that move together and thrust levers that move in Autothrust mode. However, it's the quality of the pilot and the training that will be the deciding factor.

 

[sinkrate]

A direct indicating AOA indicator (not computer generated) would be a big help too. These guys did not identify they were stalled. If you don't recognize what the problem is you won't respond with the correct action. All the new training would not have helped. All this computer generated information is great when it works but there are to many failure modes that have yet to be seen. As this has demonstrated. If they had a simple AOA indicator I find it hard to believe they would have held back stick as long as they did.

 

[Turtle21]

I haven't read the report but all the post here seem to be blaming the pilots for failing to recover from a stall... Fair enough, but WTF put the plane in the stall to begin with...

Is it true that no one can put an Airbus into a stall except Airbus?

 

[Microclimates]

A direct indicating AOA indicator (not computer generated) would be a big help too. These guys did not identify they were stalled. If you don't recognize what the problem is you won't respond with the correct action. All the new training would not have helped. All this computer generated information is great when it works but there are to many failure modes that have yet to be seen. As this has demonstrated. If they had a simple AOA indicator I find it hard to believe they would have held back stick as long as they did.

+1. such a simple instrument, such a huge piece of information.

 

[nwaf16dude]

No hardware improvement or software change will fix an inexperienced pilot with poor training.

 

[kf4amu]

I haven't read the report but all the post here seem to be blaming the pilots for failing to recover from a stall... Fair enough, but WTF put the plane in the stall to begin with...

I thought it was the PF by increasing pitch.

 

[SBD]

Not defending the Bus v.s. Boeing here but as a Bus driver when the other guy pushes the stick you can see what he is doing on your PFD. Correct me if I'm wrong but when you do the flight control checks the cross moves on your side. I'm sure when the poopy hits the fan you are not all aware of what's going on but doesn't the PFD show you what Sideshow Bob is doing. Not arm chair QB'ng here.

 

[Leroy Smith]

No hardware improvement or software change will fix an inexperienced pilot with poor training.

Fly. The. Wing.

You only have to miss the hard or wet stuff by 1 inch.

No mention that I have seen in these media reports about backgrounds of the pilots other than that they were "experienced". But were they experienced in anything outside the bell-jar of 121 Ops?? MPL maybe?? A lot of jibber-jabber after Colgan 3407 on these interwebs about Renslow and Shaw, and about the technicalities of her moving the flaps, yada, yada, yada.. Kinda like all this minutae about the bus. Seems pretty irrelevant to me compared to the fact that a certificated pilot held a deep stall all the way to the crash site. Always seems like a lot of arguments about experience and training and quality vs. quantity or how GA experience doesn't matter in 121, etc, etc. This is my personal high-horse, but: Seems like another example where a year or two of flight instruction or banner towing would've done a world of good. The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Don't stall.
If you do, recover.
Try not to hit anything, but if the wing ain't flying, you're gonna.

 

[Lear70]

I have that book sitting right over here on my bookshelf. One heck of a good read/study, although I haven't cracked it since a couple years after college when I got a copy after my (old-school) Lear Captain pointed me to it.

I agree with your post 100%. Most pilots coming out of the puppy mills lack a thorough understanding of swept-wing aerodynamics. Hell, at PCL we were taking pilots fresh out of GIA or other places who had never flown a jet, giving them ZERO information on how they're aerodynamically different and the affects of altitude on the wing, and throwing them in the plane. Hence 3701 where they took the plane higher than its envelope that night, then accelerated stalled / spun the aircraft when they tried to hold on to that altitude, even overriding the pusher.

3407 and this flight, same basic idea. No one recovered the plane.

There but for the grace of God go I, as I've said before, but I gotta think if you put someone with a lot of experience hand-flying airplanes who has a thorough understanding of Aerodynamics, those accidents don't happen, the error chain gets broken somewhere before the actual impact.

That's why I will never, ever, ever be supportive of ab-initio training. In any country. People need years of hand-flying experience before they need to be flying airliners around, especially since they're so automated and stick skills suffer anyway. If you don't have them to begin with, the deterioration of what little skill they have is only going to be that much more pronounced.

I still practice hand-flying the airplane (including disconnecting the a/t) up to cruise and out of 18,0 in the descent on the arrival if the weather is decent, just to keep my skills at least half-a$$ decent. I don't care if it's accepted standard practice or not. Might save my own butt someday. YMMV

 

[Flyer1015]

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

Don't be so quick to judge. An Airbus is as a 'real' airplane like any other, provided you understand it. A 'real' airplane Birgenair B757 crashed into the Ocean after the crew took off with only the Captain-side pitot probe blocked. The entire time, the standby and FO airspeed was accurate, and the attitude indicator (ADI) was always accurate. The CA was pilot flying, his airspeed readings were erroneous, and he got the stick shaker. He flew it the entire time in the stick shaker, and stalled it into the ocean. The entire time, his FOs sat there without providing any help, nor did they have an understanding of what was going on.

Even a real airplane will stall and crash into the ocean if there's lack of specific proper procedures and training.