Air France 447 - On topic only!

[MCM]

Guamainiac,

I said I would maintain altitude and track for the specific situation of a loss of automatic hold keeping in RVSM airspace with no ATC comms.

What was faced by AF447 is very different kettle of fish, and won't be entering a 'what would you do' conversation on that one!

I'd certainly agree they lost situational awareness though.

[guamainiac]

No, not soliciting a comment for that one but when you mentioned that deviation from the assigned portion of the airway would normally require communication it hit me that the were so unaware, they violated every dimension .. up and down and even doing a change of direction having reversed course (and then some), prior to impact.

That means perhaps that they could make no sense of what they were seeing or could trust nothing or some odd combination.

[EconomyClass]

Well,wait a minute. With the airspeed indications being faulty, how can you know what happened to the speed. We do know (I think) that the actual airspeed dropped to where the wings could no longer lift, causing the plane to drop. But maybe pilots in both cases thought for a critical moment they were going faster. You know, when your instruments go goofy, you can't be blamed for misunderstanding your actual situation. How many here have actually experienced any of this firsthand??

[Evan]

That means perhaps that they could make no sense of what they were seeing or could trust nothing or some odd combination.

But maybe pilots in both cases thought for a critical moment they were going faster. You know, when your instruments go goofy, you can't be blamed for misunderstanding your actual situation.

This is WHY (do I really need to keep pointing this out?) we have established procedures that will ensure stable flight within the speed envelope in the event of a loss of reliable airspeed data. You will not stall. You will not overspeed. You will not abruptly climb or descend. You do not need airspeed data to do this. All it requires is pitch and power settings, first from memory, then from the QRH. It's not difficult to adhere to these procedures. It's difficult to train pilots to NOT do something else instead.

In fact it seems all but impossible to train pilots to do this. Why?

[Evan]

I believe it is very well understood around the world that RVSM airspace requries the use of the autopilot.

MCM, that is my take on it as well. It seems fairly implicit. I can't imagine an intelligent pilot not interpreting it this way. But I wonder why this requirement is not explicitly stated in the FAR's when other aspects are so precisely stated. I have read other forums where this is discussed and pilots interpret it to mean that manual flight is allowed in RVSM while climbing or descending, and that autopilot is only required when holding a flight level. Is this true? It's not clearly defined. Anyway, as I said, this is just indicative to me of a larger trend in regulations that leaves too much grey area for interpretation.

Thanks for your explanation of the situational dependent factors.

[MCM]

Evan,

As you'd know it is nearly impossible to get agreement on anything when it comes to aviation regulations... and all because different states see it as impinging on their rights.

My interpretation is that the autopilot should be engaged for the level off - which is probably the more critical part than the actual maintenance of the level... but I guess each will have different opinion. If you have the ability to do the level off with the A/P engaged, but choose not to do so, I think its very much a case of doing it for the sake of it. I don't have the time to look for where it says the A/P needs to be engaged for the level off - it might be only down here, but I'll look when I get the chance. I haven't committed that reference to memory as yet .

Edited to add: It is in my airline's operating procedures that the AP must be engaged for the level off, and enroute step climbs. It may be disconnected for required reasons only (ie flight manual requriements such as retrimming, some turbulence).

[TeeVee]

so, in order to pack aircraft in denser, we have reduced the minimum separation by 1/2 and threw in the suggestion that they use AP in these areas, but explicitly permit manual flight in turbulence. now, it would seems pretty damn stupid to permit aircraft to be within 1000 vertical feet of each other to begin with, given that turbulence can easily send an aircraft plummeting or climbing way more than 1000 feet in a matter of a few seconds. of course, there is a horizontal separation requirement but if that were enough, there probably wouldn't be a vertical one.

just thinking out loud...

[Fear_of_Flying]

MCM, that is my take on it as well. It seems fairly implicit. I can't imagine an intelligent pilot not interpreting it this way. But I wonder why this requirement is not explicitly stated in the FAR's when other aspects are so precisely stated. I have read other forums where this is discussed and pilots interpret it to mean that manual flight is allowed in RVSM while climbing or descending, and that autopilot is only required when holding a flight level. Is this true? It's not clearly defined. Anyway, as I said, this is just indicative to me of a larger trend in regulations that leaves too much grey area for interpretation.

Thanks for your explanation of the situational dependent factors.

One of the more endearing features of your universe, Evan, is that there is a huge uber-Bureaucracy filled with explicit black-and-white rules keeping us all safe in everything we do, including from our own stupidity. Let me ask, if no intelligent pilot would hand fly at altitude, if it is widely understood that this is something you simply wouldn't do, then why do we need an additional regulation that expressly prohibits it? Is the one pilot in a hundred million who does such a thing really going to run a mental list of the regulations beforehand? I'm sure there are FAA regulations that are the equivalent of "reckless driving" traffic laws in place that would include things like hand-flying at 35K feet.

However, maybe we now have an explanation of the AF447 accident. Clearly the pilots knew they weren't supposed to handfly at 35,000 feet, and not wanting to get in trouble, made sure no one could accuse them of flying the plane.

[Evan]

One of the more endearing features of your universe, Evan, is that there is a huge uber-Bureaucracy filled with explicit black-and-white rules keeping us all safe in everything we do, including from our own stupidity. Let me ask, if no intelligent pilot would hand fly at altitude, if it is widely understood that this is something you simply wouldn't do, then why do we need an additional regulation that expressly prohibits it? Is the one pilot in a hundred million who does such a thing really going to run a mental list of the regulations beforehand? I'm sure there are FAA regulations that are the equivalent of "reckless driving" traffic laws in place that would include things like hand-flying at 35K feet.

However, maybe we now have an explanation of the AF447 accident. Clearly the pilots knew they weren't supposed to handfly at 35,000 feet, and not wanting to get in trouble, made sure no one could accuse them of flying the plane.

FOF, pardon me for saying so, but this is such a idiotic comment I literally don't know where to begin.

I guess, I could begin with "I never said that", but that doesn't seem to matter here. I could ask if you think we should just have no defined regulations because they only prevent us from own stupidity, which is I guess a bad thing in your estimation. I could point out that pilot error is a constant factor in accidents and the point of regulations is to minimize the effects of this. I could ask you what you know about the history of RVSM and what conditions made it an acceptable policy and what the point of all this would be if you don't explicitly require those conditions. I could point out that I have already pointed out that this has nothing to do with AF447, other than to explain the lack of real-world high-altitude manual flight experience. But I think I should just leave it alone. I have my opinion and you have your scorn of my opinion. As always.

[Fear_of_Flying]

FOF, pardon me for saying so, but this is such a idiotic comment I literally don't know where to begin.

I guess, I could begin with "I never said that", but that doesn't seem to matter here. I could ask if you think we should just have no defined regulations because they only prevent us from own stupidity, which is I guess a bad thing in your estimation. I could point out that pilot error is a constant factor in accidents and the point of regulations is to minimize the effects of this. I could ask you what you know about the history of RVSM and what conditions made it an acceptable policy and what the point of all this would be if you don't explicitly require those conditions. I could point out that I have already pointed out that this has nothing to do with AF447, other than to explain the lack of real-world high-altitude manual flight experience. But I think I should just leave it alone. I have my opinion and you have your scorn of my opinion. As always.

The last part of my comment was in jest. As for your other points, I didn't say there should be no regulations whatsoever. I asked if it is necessary to have an explicit regulation for everything, even those things that "any intelligent pilot" would know. Surely it's ok to have more general regulations that umbrella all manner of decision-making that would show horrific judgment. And by the way, protecting us from our own stupidity is a bad thing in my opinion, yes. Somewhere the line has to be drawn as to what needs to be regulated and what doesn't - at least for most of us.

[Gabriel]

Well,wait a minute. With the airspeed indications being faulty, how can you know what happened to the speed.

Because P+P=P (Power + Pitch = Performance)

Typical cruise power + typical cruise pitch = typical crusie airspeeds + typical vertical speeds.

Below cruise power + 11deg nose up = Diminshing speeds + 7000 fpm climb (until you run out of usable speed, stall, fall, crahs and die).

[TeeVee]

The last part of my comment was in jest. As for your other points, I didn't say there should be no regulations whatsoever. I asked if it is necessary to have an explicit regulation for everything, even those things that "any intelligent pilot" would know. Surely it's ok to have more general regulations that umbrella all manner of decision-making that would show horrific judgment. And by the way, protecting us from our own stupidity is a bad thing in my opinion, yes. Somewhere the line has to be drawn as to what needs to be regulated and what doesn't - at least for most of us.

one of Evan's problems is that he yearns for more regulations and possible more regulators, but hates lawyers and the justice system. so, even if his wish came true, he would hoot and holler about the lawyers fighting over an issue such as whether or not a particular pilot in a particular aircraft at a particular moment in time and space was really allowed to manually control the aircraft because of some limiting regulation like RVSM. Regulations will ALWAYS have holes and deficiencies in them. for chrissakes, have any of you tried reading a typical federal statute? some of them are literally pages long. the legislature has attempted to provide for every possible scenario but we know that is not possible. so, you end up with a 5 page statute with 12,000,000,000,000 holes in. and this is what bugs Evan.

well Evan, why don't you try your hand at drafting a reg or two and let's see how well you do.

[Evan]

The last part of my comment was in jest. As for your other points, I didn't say there should be no regulations whatsoever. I asked if it is necessary to have an explicit regulation for everything, even those things that "any intelligent pilot" would know. Surely it's ok to have more general regulations that umbrella all manner of decision-making that would show horrific judgment. And by the way, protecting us from our own stupidity is a bad thing in my opinion, yes. Somewhere the line has to be drawn as to what needs to be regulated and what doesn't - at least for most of us.

And I agree with you completely, because I never said the we must have an explicit regulation for everything. What I did say is that I find it a glaring omission that unnecessary manual flight at cruise level in RVSM is not explicitly banned by the same sections of the FAR's that are so explicit in stating all the other conditions, procedures and requirements of RVSM. As MCM pointed out, some operators make this restriction in their own directives, but perhaps some do not and therefore, because RVSM requires standardization to be safe, it should not rest upon the operators to add these prohibitions as they see fit. There is no point in Qantas having a strict RVSM policy if another airline can drift off flight level in manual flight and collide with them. Get it?

And, of course, I'm not specifically talking about RVSM, which is of little relevance here, and probably not even an issue as I expect most pilots understand the implicit requirements of the FAR's, but of regulations overall, which are still far from standardized on many issues, including the requirement to train pilots for UAS or stall recovery procedures, something that is very much on topic here.

Let me give you an example:

The BEA AF447 report makes the following recomendation:

 that EASA review the content of check and training programmes and make mandatory, in particular, the setting up of specific and regular exercises dedicated to manual aircraft handling of approach to stall and stall recovery, including at high altitude.

That's a no-brainer. But why wasn't it already mandatory? Why do accidents like these have to occur before such requirements are made?

Now let me give you a hypothetical example:

A Qantas flight is operating in RVSM on autopilot. Another airline is operating on a intersecting airway 1000ft below, but they have a vague policy on RVSM and the pilot has decided to give George a break and take over. He has one hand on the yoke while he is telling the 'stewardess' what fetching blue eyes she has, and does not notice a gradual climb due to a number of factors, and despite TCAS, the planes collide and hundreds of lives are lost.

I GUARANTEE that, in the aftermath, the investigation would make a recommendation that makes mandatory the use of autopilot in RVSM unless it is inhibited for certain specific reasons. That is how the regulatory system currently works. It does not do enough to foresee dangers and make preemptive regulations. It seems to take one tragedy after another to strengthen regulations, after the fact.

That is a fatal policy.

[MCM]

TeeVee,

Ref the turbulence and hand flying:

In cases of severe turbulence (the kind that may need you to disconnect) then RVSM operations will be suspended and standard levels used. FWIW the turbulence really does have to be quite bad to require manual flight - modern autopilots are very good at handling it.

[TeeVee]

TeeVee,

Ref the turbulence and hand flying:

In cases of severe turbulence (the kind that may need you to disconnect) then RVSM operations will be suspended and standard levels used. FWIW the turbulence really does have to be quite bad to require manual flight - modern autopilots are very good at handling it.

so i've been told by several pilots. however, there are apparently times when the AP is intentionally disconnected prior to entering a storm or some such area.