Air France Crash - Report out today

[Flyer1015]

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.

See Birgenair crash of a B757. That Captain had the yoke back right in the stickshaker the entire time, and both the FO and relief FO did nothing. They stalled into the ocean. All of it was due to only ONE pitot tube blocked, the Captain side (who was PF). The standby and FO airspeeds were accurate the entire time. I say again, a Boeing 757 crashed into the ocean after having only one pitot probe blockage, Captain airspeed erroneous, stick shaker that the CA flew in the entire time, and then eventually stalled it. Both FOs saw where the yoke was. End result was the aircraft pancaked into the ocean and everyone died.

So yes, this thing has happened on a Boeing before, and is not just an "Airbus" thing that led to the Air France crash. Proper training procedures need to be emphasized, and enough of this "minimize altitude loss" crap on stall recovery.

 

[Flyer1015]

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.

Are you talking about the white cross? That's normal law in ground mode during flight control checks you can see it on the PFD like you said. But the white cross disappears on liftoff as you exit ground mode.

 

[SMcC]

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.

100% right
thank you guys

 

[Dan Roman]

Well so far we have two A/C with yokes stalling in with the YOKE pulled back (A 757 and the Colgan ATR) and one Airbus mentioned on this string. The problem in all of them was the pilot made a mistake. Not the fault of the airplane.
Gotta laugh at people bashing the Airbus and when you ask them if they have flown it......uh,no.
It's different, so was the DC-3 or the 727 or the 747 etc etc. For Christ sakes, every airplane is "different". I'm new to the Bus, but my take is it is a fabulous machine. Sure their are new things to learn, that's one of the many things that make it an enjoyable plane to fly.

 

[Dan Roman]

In other words, if you fly into a thunderstorm all bets are off no matter what airplane you are flying, but the AirBus is less likely to have a stall accident than any other airplane out there.

 

[Dornier 335]

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.

Sorry, that's a bunch of bs. What do you know about AF training and standards? How can you state the NWA and QF A330 incident were identical with AF447? Where they flying through the ITCZ? Late at night? No accident is identical. Looking at other "respected" operators, it seems they have issues landing in crosswinds or landing an MD11. Sometimes, Mr. Murphy stays with you all the way to touchdown.

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

Hey Mr. "Real" Airplane, besides making dumb comments about an airplane you never flew, and obviously don't know much about, what about Aeroperu flight 603 (B757)? Seems like "real" airplanes fall out of the sky as well, with some or full blockage of the pitot-static system.

The real issure as previously mentioned IS pilot training (vs. automation), here and the rest of the world. Pilots being used as system monitors, and being assured that the automation can do a better job. Add long haul flying to this, and you'll end up with pilots logging very little stick time/skill per 1000 hours of flying.

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

I agree, Lear, my observation flying in Europe was exactly that. Unfortunately, the aviation authorities and the industry don't seem convinced enough. Browsing through pprune, you'll read a lot of posts why you should NOT be handflying, and focus more on proper R/T (sigh) etc.

If you compare both "flying cultures" (if you can call that), you'll see that the accident rate between Europe and the US is about the same.

 

[SMcC]

Well so far we have two A/C with yokes stalling in with the YOKE pulled back (A 757 and the Colgan ATR) and one Airbus mentioned on this string. The problem in all of them was the pilot made a mistake. Not the fault of the airplane.
Gotta laugh at people bashing the Airbus and when you ask them if they have flown it......uh,no.
It's different, so was the DC-3 or the 727 or the 747 etc etc. For Christ sakes, every airplane is "different". I'm new to the Bus, but my take is it is a fabulous machine. Sure their are new things to learn, that's one of the many things that make it an enjoyable plane to fly.

also 100% right

 

[SBD]

Are you talking about the white cross? That's normal law in ground mode during flight control checks you can see it on the PFD like you said. But the white cross disappears on liftoff as you exit ground mode.

Didn't know that. Thanks for the info. Still new to the airplane.

 

[GogglesPisano]

If you really want an in depth analysis of AF447, this is a first-rate documentary on the event.

http://video.pbs.org/video/1685933496

 

[Flyer1015]

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. Sorry, that's a bunch of bs. What do you know about AF training and standards?

For the 2000-2009 decade, Air France lost a Concorde, an A340 at Toronto, and this A330 over the Atlantic Ocean. 2/3 of those were complete fatalities. For an international legacy carrier, 3 major hull loses in that time frame is a lot. It's sort of like China Airlines in the 1990-1999 timeframe. However, China Airlines cleaned up their trainging and operational issues and have been much safer in the last 9 years. I'm not saying Air France is unsafe, but these 3 hull loses in one of the safest decades of aviation (2000-2009) is concerning.