Air France 447 - On topic only!

[Taliesin]

ehhhhh, wrong! even I know that in a boeing the human pilot can take over. Period. end of story. in an airbus, apparently that is not possible.

More platitudes.
Does the Airbus assist the pilot? Yes it does.
Is the pilot's input interpreted and altered before it is executed? Yes it is.
Does that make the pilot a passenger or any less in control? No it does not.

The AT helps pilots in turns by adding power but as far as I know, so does the AT in the 777. The pilot's inputs are translated into control surface deflections based on the airplane speed and maximum allowed deflection, same as in a 777.
The Airbus goes where pilot tells it to, this trotting around of platitudes does this board no favours and I think it's fair to demand exact proof of exactly what it is you talk about next time you do and show the exact differences to the Boeing philosophy, otherwise it's just that: talk and platitudes

[BoeingBobby]

TeeVee wrote "There is simply no denying that far more many Boeings have crashed than Airbuses".


Let us see here, first Boeing aircraft built and flown in 1916.

Number of Boeing commercial airplanes built over 42000

First Airbus built and flown 1970, and around 6700 built.

You THINK maybe statistics might come into play here?

[Taliesin]

TeeVee wrote "There is simply no denying that far more many Boeings have crashed than Airbuses".


Let us see here, first Boeing aircraft built and flown in 1916.

Number of Boeing commercial airplanes built over 42000

First Airbus built and flown 1970, and around 6700 built.

You THINK maybe statistics might come into play here?

I agree that this kind of comparison is ridiculous. I you have to compare airplane safety, it should be done comparing similar airplanes from similar eras doing similar missions, 767/A330, 777/A330, A320/737NG, but even that is just wanking off of stats. The A320 introduced a lot of new technology while the 737 was only "warmed over" and so every comparison is flawed in one way or another.

[elaw]

Does the Airbus assist the pilot? Yes it does.
Is the pilot's input interpreted and altered before it is executed? Yes it is.
Does that make the pilot a passenger or any less in control? No it does not.

You've got some very interesting logic there... or lack thereof.

I think most people would say that someone's input being "interpreted and altered before it is executed" is just about the textbook definition of "less in control".

[Taliesin]

You've got some very interesting logic there... or lack thereof.

I think most people would say that someone's input being "interpreted and altered before it is executed" is just about the textbook definition of "less in control".

How is it less control when the plane still does exactly what the pilot tells it to do?
You could argue the same thing about hydraulicly powered control surfaces if you wanted and go "Oh no, hydraulics are pushing the control surfaces, the pilot is not in control, hydraulics are!"
It's bullshit.

[elaw]

How is it less control when the plane still does exactly what the pilot tells it to do?

Um... in your previous post you explicitly stated otherwise: "the pilot's input is altered"...

Actually in this case your wording is quite funny... you state "...the plane does exactly what the pilot tells it to do". In the case of AAF447, it certainly appears the pilots were telling the plane to go up but instead the plane went down*.

Now it appears the most basic reason for that is the laws of physics (plane cannot fly if AoA exceeds a certain amount) but it certainly seems possible that the intervention of the automated systems could have contributed to the plane getting into that situation. Just like in different circumstances, the automated systems might have *prevented* the plane getting into that situation.

*Yes, there are some semantics at play here. You could also say "the pilots commanded the plane to stall and it did"...

[Taliesin]

In the case of AAF447, it certainly appears the pilots were telling the plane to go up but instead the plane went down*.

There are two questions here, one is why didn't the pilots apply the UAS checklist and applied pitch and power and the other is why did the pilots pull back on the stick and climbed 3000 feet, even though in their briefing 10 minutes earlier they all agreed that FL370 was out of reach for the moment because temperatures proved to be higher than expected.
These 2 details is what Evan refers to as "pilot error". The important thing is that this does not end the investigation, it starts it. We need to find out why the pilots did what they did and how we can prevent future instances of this happening.
From what I can see and from what other Airbus pilots tell me, the plane did nothing it was not supposed to do. The THS changed position as it is supposed to due to a pulling at the stick and subsequent climb.

[Black Ram]

it's too bad there aren't too many airbus drivers here, cuz it appears to me that all the boeing guys think that this probably would not have occurred in a boeing.

I would think it can happen in a Boeing. Maybe those Boeing guys say it is less likely, because Boeings are more attention-demanding, while Airbus spoil their pilots. This doesn't sound like bad engineering philosophy to me, but more like bad training. I think Boeing guys like to exaggerate, understandably so. I still remember the anti-bus fear mongering some engaged in. The only thing that was left to claim was that Airbus aircraft are a hazard, because their electronics make them more likely to attract alien spaceships.....

And let's not forget one minor detail, the true significance of the pitot tube failure - this can happen on an Airbus only in alternate or direct law.

as for these 3 AF pilots, like my buddy said, damn scary that 3 experienced pilots did what the BEA report says...

Exactly, this has to be discussed. I'm not sure I see how Airbus can have contributed to this, other than by spoiling the pilots who fly them. I don't think there was a battle with the computers/automation.

we all "know" the end result is now going to point the biggest finger at the humans in this equation. my question/concern is, is anyone gonna have the balls to stand up to airbus and say that their equipment is too automated? heh, i doubt it...

I also doubt it, given all the good things that have come out of the automation. AF447 presented the crew with a "loophole", and the crew could have just done nothing. They also could have applied the proper procedure (memory items). Instead, they did something bizarre, at least to me. Again, many point their finger at the Bus and blame it for the crew's bizarre conduct. It is still too early to draw any conclusions, including such ones blaming the automation, but one thing we know is that many times investigators of aircraft accidents are confronted with such bizarre crew conduct, where no one believes the crew actually did what they did and it's hard to understand it or accept it. Yet, it finds its way to the probable cause summary.

In my view, so far it looks like the A330 worked as intended and gave the crew all that it asked from it. I am sort of impressed it climbed past through its planned altitude (and maybe past it) at 7,000 ft/min, in the meteorological conditions it was flying in and with the weight it was carrying. It seems it remained controllable for a long time, possibly for the whole 3 mins and a half. Only a dramatic twist in the investigation can make me think otherwise, which is, of course, not impossible.

Btw, didn't the NTSB say the FBW controls on the A320 help Sully control the airplane and make a smooth and precise landing at a speed lower than the optimal landing speed? I am inclined to think the computerized controls are a big plus and it's the reason why Airbus aircraft can make exceptionally smooth landings, when the crew is patient. Just two days ago I landed in the back of a seemingly heavy Lufthansa A340-300, with seemingly not full flaps and it was so smooth and effortless, that I was left speechless. I would have a hard time believing FBW didn't play a role.

[BoeingBobby]

Black Ram "didn't the NTSB say the FBW controls on the A320 help Sully control the airplane and make a smooth and precise landing at a speed lower than the optimal landing speed? I am inclined to think the computerized controls are a big plus and it's the reason why Airbus aircraft can make exceptionally smooth landings, when the crew is patient. Just two days ago I landed in the back of a seemingly heavy Lufthansa A340-300, with seemingly not full flaps and it was so smooth and effortless, that I was left speechless. I would have a hard time believing FBW didn't play a role".

This is a joke right? And your pilot qualifications are what again?


This is not a Boeing vs Airbus thing. Flying the aircraft is flying the aircraft. It can be a C-5 or a C-150, someone has to be minding the store.

[Black Ram]

BoeingBobby, I am sorry if I offended the pilots of classic jets, but you don't have to be a pilot to understand the advantages of the Airbus philosophy - advanced aerodynamics+advanced flight controls. I would think the real Boeing people agree, as the latest Boeing jet in service, the 777 has incorporated it in its design.

But I take no offense in your personal/qualification attack, as the reality must be truly hard for you to deal with - no more steam gauges, no more triple-slotted flaps....

[Black Ram]

Flying the aircraft is flying the aircraft. It can be a C-5 or a C-150, someone has to be minding the store.

Yeah, well, this is true. But the interface is different and you get different physical, as well as psychological consequences. Performance can be very different on FBW aircraft as well.

[BoeingBobby]

Yeah, well, this is true. But the interface is different and you get different physical, as well as psychological consequences. Performance can be very different on FBW aircraft as well.

And you know this because you have ? hours flying a FBW aircraft?

[Black Ram]

And you know this because you have ? hours flying a FBW aircraft?

180hrs of flying A330/A340 in MFS X, 90hrs of the 777 in x-plane, as well as 400hrs of flying RC gliders (the most modern ones have FBW, but crash due to updrafts/cheap french composites/crap french computers). Also, www.internet.com helped a lot.

Now your turn. How does flying a classic 747 compare? Btw, what is your average speed range for rotation?

[Taliesin]

And you know this because you have ? hours flying a FBW aircraft?

The last straw for someone running out of arguments. Pathetic

[Evan]

Right now my report would read that the pilots, for lack of information sat there pecking at controls hoping something worked.

Which would be the wrong thing to do, a.k.a pilot error. But, based on the information released by the BEA, the pilots had reliable internal reference data, therefore pitch and roll instrumentation. The pilot error was in pitch inputs. It is plausible that, due to high speed flight and an aft center of gravity, combined with insufficient pilot training for manual control at this phase of flight (which is done only when the auto-pilot faults) the PF may have initially overcontrolled, but it doesn't explain the continue nose up inputs. Perhaps strong updrafts amplified the rate of climb. As I said before, the press release is frustratingly vague. Of course, I await the final report, but unless it reveals something new, this is a clear case of pilot error.

Going over the previous two pages of this thread, it is disheartening to see the scarebus hype growing back here like a fungus of ignorance. Let's clear one thing up right away:

At no time did the pilots not have the ability to take full control of the aircraft. The Airbus systems NEVER prevent the pilot from taking control, as long as pilot inputs remain within the safe flight envelope. The difference between Boeing FBW and Airbus FBW lies in the fact that a Boeing pilot can override the envelope protections with breakout force, and fly the plane all the way inverted or into a full nose dive if he so desires.