Air France Flight Missing

[Andy Neill]

There are multiple accidents where the use [misuse?] of Airbus automation has been a factor. Such Boeing events (like the Turks in Amsterdam) are less frequent. I am not a Boeing grandstander by any means but I think the data supports my statement.

 

[Redmeat]

"..the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. "

Therefore, Pilot error.

However, were there no FBW ( direct mechanical control ) and no "modes" to deal with there would have been no crash.

Hmmm. A conundrum.

Next: Which came first? The Chicken? Or, the Egg?


MKR

Yeah, when the first airline pilot uttered the words "what's it doing now?" we had a whole new slew of problems to deal with.

Had this same AF scenario happened exactly as it did...only in 1968 and the aircraft had been a DC-8, I'd be willing to lay money down we wouldn't be having a discussion about an accident...

 

[filejw]

Try the Paris Air Show years ago when the flight computer landed the jet in the forest. Trying to do a low pass the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. It was landing. Crews advanced throttles and rotated the aircraft, both actions were overridden by the computer logic. Am I wrong here? It was a long time ago.

Yup you are wrong and it wasn't the Paris Air Show...

 

[414Flyer]

2 bodies found, and a suitcase now too from that flight

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

I shouldn't have gone there without the appropriate headgear, but this guy has it all figured out:

Tinfoil hat alert!

http://chemtrailcentral.com/forum/thread13866.html?sid=1be193f9f57e629ff8f7a5db9465cd72

 

[Redmeat]

2 bodies found, and a suitcase now too from that flight

Brazilian Military reported the 2 recovered bodies were found 69 Kilometers from the location of the last message from the 330.

Not too far considering it's been almost a week.

 

[Sgt. Hartman]

On a Boeing, if I override the autothrottles (just by moving them) or kick the autopilot off, I have control of the airplane. Period. The end.

What about the 777? Do you have control of the airplane? Period. The end. That's a Boeing too, right?

 

[Blue Dude]

Try the Paris Air Show years ago when the flight computer landed the jet in the forest. Trying to do a low pass the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. It was landing. Crews advanced throttles and rotated the aircraft, both actions were overridden by the computer logic. Am I wrong here? It was a long time ago.

It wasn't the Paris Air Show but never mind. The crew dipped way below their planned fly-by altitude and then expected the airplane to apply corrective thrust. The airplane doesn't behave the same that close to the ground as at higher altitude and refused to override the pilot. The crew was too late applying corrective thrust and they crashed. The crew sat on their hands waiting on a feature demo that wasn't armed. The plane never overrode the crew's commands. The crew simply didn't act until it was too late to matter.

 

[Fedora]

Yup you are wrong and it wasn't the Paris Air Show...

Thanks Filejw for the good catch! Unfortunately, my memory is the second shortest thing I own anymore.
I dug up some info on that one and it seemed that pilot error was a primary factor.
I hope that they find the acft and figure this one out so it might be prevented in the future. Condolences to all those effected by this sad event.
Date: June 26, 1988
Time: 14:45
Location: Habsheim, France
Operator: Air France
Flight number: 296Q
Route: Basel - Basel
AC type: Airbus A320-111
Aboard: 136 (passengers: 130, crew:6)
Fatalities: 3 (passengers: 3, crew:0)

Summary: The plane was scheduled to perform a series of fly-bys at an air show. The plane was to descend to 100 ft. altitude with landing gear and flaps extended. The automatic go-around protection was inhibited for the maneuver. During the maneuver, the plane descended thru 100 ft. to an altitude of 30 feet and hit trees at the end of the runway. The aircraft was totally destroyed by the successive impacts and violent fire which followed. The pilot allowed the aircraft to descend through 100 ft. at slow speed and maximum angle of attack and was late in applying go-around power. Unfamiliarity of the crew with the landing field and lack of planning for the flyby.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EM0hDchVlY&feature=related

 

[Mike man]

Try the Paris Air Show years ago when the flight computer landed the jet in the forest. Trying to do a low pass the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. It was landing. Crews advanced throttles and rotated the aircraft, both actions were overridden by the computer logic. Am I wrong here? It was a long time ago.

Yes you are wrong, the crew did not advance the thrust levers to TOGA in initiate a go-around. So the airplane thought it was still landing, not the smartest thing in the world...but like they say garbage-in, garbage-out.

"..the crew didn't realize what "mode" the computer was in. "

Therefore, Pilot error.

However, were there no FBW ( direct mechanical control ) and no "modes" to deal with there would have been no crash.

Hmmm. A conundrum.

Sorta...how many go-around's are performed in A320's during a year? How many have had a similar result?

I don't disagree, manual inputs provide a better "feel" but you can't argue with statistics.

 

[Donsa320]

Yes you are wrong, the crew did not advance the thrust levers to TOGA in initiate a go-around. So the airplane thought it was still landing, not the smartest thing in the world...but like they say garbage-in, garbage-out.



Sorta...how many go-around's are performed in A320's during a year? How many have had a similar result?

I don't disagree, manual inputs provide a better "feel" but you can't argue with statistics.

The crew did advance to TOGA but way too late! N1 had only gotten up to 85% when they started hitting trees. Full stick back was also applied but Alpha Protection limited the pitch angle The airplane did all it could and did respond to the pilot inputs but would not let him STALL it, just as advertised. They went through the trees wings dead level and only had 3 deaths. That accident was 20 years ago and still people can't get it straight.

 

[C601]

I found this on a different site...

02:10Z:Autothrust off
Autopilot off
FBW alternate law
Rudder Travel Limiter Fault
TCAS fault due to antenna fault
Flight Envelope Computation warning
All pitot static ports lost

02:11Z:Failure of all three ADIRUs
Failure of gyros of ISIS (attitude information lost)

02:12Z:ADIRUs Air Data disagree

02:13Z:Flight Management, Guidance and Envelope Computer fault
PRIM 1 fault
SEC 1 fault02:14Z:Cabin Pressure Controller fault (cabin vertical speed)

Looks like you need to read up on Introduction to Avionics Systems, If you paid attention and READ the whole page, you would of known your quote is someones interpretation of what happened.

Further more ISIS doesn't have gyros, it has a solid state sensor.

And your a A320 FO lol ..

 

[Mike man]

Looks like you need to read up on Introduction to Avionics Systems, If you paid attention and READ the whole page, you would of known your quote is someones interpretation of what happened.

Further more ISIS doesn't have gyros, it has a solid state sensor.

And your a A320 FO lol ..

Nope, not me...like I said just before pasting the info...I found this on a different site...I didn't interpret the ACARS messages, I was just trying to help. If you had bothered to read my post without jumping to conclusions, you would have discovered that on you own.

I'm not sure what is funnier your post or this "And your a A320 FO lol .." that actually made me laugh. call my wife to read it and she laughed too.

 

[Mike man]

The crew did advance to TOGA but way too late! N1 had only gotten up to 85% when they started hitting trees. Full stick back was also applied but Alpha Protection limited the pitch angle The airplane did all it could and did respond to the pilot inputs but would not let him STALL it, just as advertised. They went through the trees wings dead level and only had 3 deaths. That accident was 20 years ago and still people can't get it straight.

Like I said they did not select TOGA to initiate a go-around, flying through the tops of the trees is a little too late.

 

[Bringupthebird]

Of course had the Q400 been designed with the flight envelope protections of an A320, there may have been 1 less fatal accident this year.

 

[Donsa320]

Like I said they did not select TOGA to initiate a go-around, flying through the tops of the trees is a little too late.

I really do not know what you are trying to say but, showboating on a 2500ft grass runway with a full load of people and then trying to demonstrate Alpha Floor was not too bright either.

DC

 

[svcta]

Everyone, can we keep this thread on topic? We all have our opinions of the Airbus philosophy, but this thread was doing a good job of staying on point until this.

Has anyone heard anything else after the news about having found 2 bodies? I heard this morning that AF was "ramping up" the replacement of pitot tubes on their fleet because of problems with erroneous input to the systems. What do we know about this?

 

[Redmeat]

Has anyone heard anything else after the news about having found 2 bodies?

3 more bodies found. Total of 5 now. Plus, verified pieces of the ac.

US NAVY gear is on the way, arrives tomorrow that will be used to try and locate the CVR and FDR.

 

[Princedietrich]

CNN International is now saying the count is 17....

 

[ImbracableCrunk]

You'd think that a P-3 with sonobuoys - ones that can find a sub that is trying to hide - could find a CVR and FDR that wants to be found.

Any one have info on that aspect?

 

[N1VIBS]

You'd think that a P-3 with sonobuoys - ones that can find a sub that is trying to hide - could find a CVR and FDR that wants to be found.

Any one have info on that aspect?

Speaking of subs. Saw on the news this a.m. that someone (USA or France??) is sending a submarine to the area. I know zero about submarines, but don't they have that "super secret" sonar stuff that can pick up noise (pings from the FDR and CVR) for miles around? Any ex submariners on here?

 

[densoo]

Air France pilots' union has put out recommendations to its pilots to refuse to fly a plane that doesn't have the new pitot tubes.

http://translate.google.com/transla...arch?q=le+monde&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Someone tell me what the issue is with the pitot tubes. Are they aerodynamically deficient, or is it a matter of heating? What's the theory of the link to the AF 447 crash?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

They just recovered the tail section of 447.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/world/americas/09plane.html?hp

 

[densoo]

Someone tell me what the issue is with the pitot tubes. Are they aerodynamically deficient, or is it a matter of heating? What's the theory of the link to the AF 447 crash?

From the NYT article in previous post:

On Sunday, Dominique Bussereau, the French secretary of state for transportation, told RTL radio that the authorities were focusing on a transmission from the plane, during the last minutes of flight, indicating that airspeed readings on its onboard systems were inconsistent.
“The series of readings represent the only real element for investigators at this moment,” he said. In particular, they were reviewing the performance of a Pitot tube, part of the speed measurement system.
“There have been situations on Airbus planes, and perhaps on others, where these tubes no longer indicated the airspeed because it entered a humid area, a low-pressure area, an area of turbulence,” he added. If the Flight 447 pilots could not read the correct speed, the plane could have been flying too slowly or too fast, with deadly results.
French investigators announced Saturday that the plane had been scheduled to have its Pitot tube replaced, but it remained unclear whether the part had malfunctioned or had anything to do with the crash.

 

[filejw]

The crew did advance to TOGA but way too late! N1 had only gotten up to 85% when they started hitting trees. Full stick back was also applied but Alpha Protection limited the pitch angle The airplane did all it could and did respond to the pilot inputs but would not let him STALL it, just as advertised. They went through the trees wings dead level and only had 3 deaths. That accident was 20 years ago and still people can't get it straight.

This acident reminds me of something i see a lot in people new to glass. Instead of saying "whats it doing now" pilots should be looking through the FMC and glass to make sure the a/c is doing what they want..

 

[Lear70]

I'm not buying anything about the pitot tubes quite yet...

There's WAY too many other avionics faults in a VERY short time period to be blaming pitot tubes as the primary cause this early in the investigation sequence.

Sounds like a distraction from AF and Airbus, but I always look for the black helicopters first (just to make sure they really AREN'T sneaking up behind me...)

 

[Princedietrich]

Seems to me that the problem wouldn't be so much with the pitot tubes but perhaps with the computers they are feeding information to. I mean a pitot tube is a simple pneumatic device with no electrons flowing through it at all (except the heater of course) but an electrical fault could wipe out the computer easily. With that barrage of avionics and electrical failure message, maybe that's what happened? Of course we'll never know for sure until they find that FDR.

 

[EuroWheenie]

densoo

A very small Aır France unıon, representıng less than 4% of the pılot corps - and only pılots from what used to be Aır Inter - ıs makıng noıses. Nothıng unusual about that; it is one of those radical and ideologically driven unions which live in a different world than the rest of us. They usually calls for strikes on a monthly basis; last time they did so a massive 4 (four) pilots stayed at home. For all intents and purposes a non-event - but it looks good on the headlines and the unwashed masses will of course cling to it.

Vertical stabiliser has been recovered, ın one piece ıncl. rudder.

 

[EdAtTheAirport]

Still doesn't answer my question. What do they mean the pitot tubes don't "indicate airspeed" in a humid area (like a cloud), or a low pressure area (like at altitude), or turbulence? How does an airplane get certified with non-working pitot tubes?

This doesn't make sense, and if it doesn't make sense, it's not true. -- Judge Judy

I say red herring.