Air France 447 - On topic only!

[Black Ram]

I don't think so, unless it was a crappy airline or a crappy crew.

There is a thing called "stabilized approach" with, for short, says that if below 1000ft you are not flying within a tight range around the target in all speed, path and glide slope, and you do that with only minor corrections needed, you better go around.

So which airline was that?

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a bit. The point I was making is, we were near severe weather and we got a small taste of it. There was lightning like every 5 seconds for some time, and also clouds with currents and updrafts. I think we literally might have been at 1000ft when I got a clear view of the ground and the bad weather was gone. It was US Airways (rated very crappy, but I'm not so sure about that being true). The pilot did a great job and he did warn of "a few bumps".

However, when departing for that flight we were delayed for some time at the gate, and then when we were finally on our way there was some heavy rain and I could see lightning in the distance. We quickly took off with full (or close to) flaps. That left me wondering for a bit. But if the crew was trying to escape the bad weather at both airports, they succeeded. Not to mention there was supposedly a high chance of delaying or cancelling the flight due to weather at the destination.

Anyway, I haven't read the report for the Hudson landing, but on Aircrash Investigators they did mention the NTSB had said the Airbus flight control system had assisted Sully in keeping the wings level when flying slower than normal.

[BoeingBobby]

Ok, maybe I was exaggerating a bit. The point I was making is, we were near severe weather and we got a small taste of it. There was lightning like every 5 seconds for some time, and also clouds with currents and updrafts. I think we literally might have been at 1000ft when I got a clear view of the ground and the bad weather was gone. It was US Airways (rated very crappy, but I'm not so sure about that being true). The pilot did a great job and he did warn of "a few bumps".

However, when departing for that flight we were delayed for some time at the gate, and then when we were finally on our way there was some heavy rain and I could see lightning in the distance. We quickly took off with full (or close to) flaps. That left me wondering for a bit. But if the crew was trying to escape the bad weather at both airports, they succeeded. Not to mention there was supposedly a high chance of delaying or cancelling the flight due to weather at the destination.

Anyway, I haven't read the report for the Hudson landing, but on Aircrash Investigators they did mention the NTSB had said the Airbus flight control system had assisted Sully in keeping the wings level when flying slower than normal.

You want to bet on that? All you arm chair FS pilots haven't a clue, and obviously there is no way to convince you otherwise. You guys can read all the FCOM's and info on the internet you can find. It is not like getting in a real a/c and going flying.

[BoeingBobby]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k

[Black Ram]

You want to bet on that? All you arm chair FS pilots haven't a clue, and obviously there is no way to convince you otherwise. You guys can read all the FCOM's and info on the internet you can find. It is not like getting in a real a/c and going flying.

Well yeah, I'm not a good ol' pilot of a good ol' airplane. But to end this sub-thread for myself at least - no, I don't think the automation of Airbus aircraft will be blamed and I don't think it will be pulled back. If anything, we could see a move in the opposite direction. How about a special "stuck at 5 dg nose up and 85% power" alternate law when UAS is encountered at or above FLXXX. Boy, will you get a heart attack then.

[Fear_of_Flying]

You want to bet on that? All you arm chair FS pilots haven't a clue, and obviously there is no way to convince you otherwise. You guys can read all the FCOM's and info on the internet you can find. It is not like getting in a real a/c and going flying.

Are you Capt. DT?

[BoeingBobby]

Are you Capt. DT?

D.T. ? Must be over my head or I'm too old.

But I can tell you for a fact that Mr. Black Ram has no idea how a real jet aircraft in configured for take-off. Full or almost full flaps for take-off? Take-off warning horn would be blaring for the entire roll.

I know that is NOT the case. Maybe looking out the side window as a passenger with all of his MSFS knowledge it looked like it. But I would bet my next years salary they were set at 10 to 20 max.

[Black Ram]

But I can tell you for a fact that Mr. Black Ram has no idea how a real jet aircraft in configured for take-off. Full or almost full flaps for take-off? Take-off warning horn would be blaring for the entire roll.

I know that is NOT the case. Maybe looking out the side window as a passenger with all of his MSFS knowledge it looked like it. But I would bet my next years salary they were set at 10 to 20 max.

Oh yeah? I tell you what, buddy. I lifted off a classic 747 off of Meigs Field in MSFS98 back in the day. Have you done that?

Now seriously, I was pointing that out exactly because it is unusual. I specifically said "what seemed like full flaps", because from the cabin you can't tell whether it's 20 or 25. Sure it was not 10. On all my previous take-offs with the a320 family they select 5 or 10. But here, while there is no way for me to know how much exactly the flaps were extended, I can almost say for sure it was the same configuration for both take-off and landing. Even after push-back, when the PF configured the flaps I noticed it was quite a lot, like I had never seen before and I thought, maybe he was really trying to climb fast past a certain altitude and in a short distance traveled, possibly because of the storm. While taxiing to the runway he extended them a notch further.

So going past your newest personal/qualifications attacks, I effortlessly found this, which answers my own questions:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/68195/

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/424971-airbus-a320-flap-settings.html

http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6841122&nseq=5

While it looked like more than on this pic, it was probably due to the angle. This is flaps 3 (or 20, for you BoeingBobby dude), and the next setting is flaps 4, which gives you 35 and that's indeed too much. So, one can use flaps 3 for both take-off and landing. The question remains if this is unusual and why one would be doing it.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Take-off warning horn would be blaring for the entire roll.

That there sounds like some fancy automation to me. Good thing, too, I reckon, not to let the pilot take off with them flaps all out of kilter.

[Fear_of_Flying]

I don't think the automation of Airbus aircraft will be blamed and I don't think it will be pulled back. If anything, we could see a move in the opposite direction.

I agree. If things turn out as it appears they might in the investigation, the reaction won't be, "The automation did them in," it will be "DESPITE the automation in place to protect them, they still managed to crash. Hence, we need to produce better automation that makes it even harder to stall the plane", as you say, perhaps examining what happens in alternate law as a starting point.

[Jpmkam]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imDFSnklB0k

Seen that before, it was still amazing to hear the ATC tape of the event in sync with the simulation.

[Jpmkam]

I agree. If things turn out as it appears they might in the investigation, the reaction won't be, "The automation did them in," it will be "DESPITE the automation in place to protect them, they still managed to crash. Hence, we need to produce better automation that makes it even harder to stall the plane", as you say, perhaps examining what happens in alternate law as a starting point.

I'm sure training improvements will be a big part of the recommendations once the final report is completed and released.

[EconomyClass]

Wonderful how we can sit at our computers and judge human beings going through hell. Must take a generous spirit to do that. I've seen managers put unwise levels of pressure on workers, then comes and error, and the people creating the pressure then come in and add insult to injury by berating the people who made the errors. Part of qualification to be in the position of power, I guess. It is especially sweet to sit in judgment on the dead. I don't doubt there were errors. I've seen tons of human error in my work life. But I've also sat in the seat where the errors were made. So I know the context. Fact is that the people who helped create the scenario now have their own personal cabooses to keep out of the fire. If you know corporations at all, you can predict what they will do. But those who parrot those responses with no personal loss facing them really lack any excuse. As the old saying goes, dead men tell no tales. It is up to the living to be their voice as this thing goes down. Ultimately, the best defense is the truth, not slanted narratives like "the plane can handle this if the humans do the right thing". I don't know if I can trust BEA totally, but maybe for once the lawyers (the most despised profession on earth) will do their utmost to fill in the part of the story that Airbus, Air France, and BEA leave out. I hope so.

[Fear_of_Flying]

I'm sure training improvements will be a big part of the recommendations once the final report is completed and released.

That too. But insofar as the role of automation is concerned, I don't think the attitude will be there was too much of it, the attitude will be it didn't go far enough. That was Black Ram's point, I think.

[Fear_of_Flying]

Wonderful how we can sit at our computers and judge human beings going through hell. Must take a generous spirit to do that. I've seen managers put unwise levels of pressure on workers, then comes and error, and the people creating the pressure then come in and add insult to injury by berating the people who made the errors. Part of qualification to be in the position of power, I guess. It is especially sweet to sit in judgment on the dead. I don't doubt there were errors. I've seen tons of human error in my work life. But I've also sat in the seat where the errors were made. So I know the context. Fact is that the people who helped create the scenario now have their own personal cabooses to keep out of the fire. If you know corporations at all, you can predict what they will do. But those who parrot those responses with no personal loss facing them really lack any excuse. As the old saying goes, dead men tell no tales. It is up to the living to be their voice as this thing goes down. Ultimately, the best defense is the truth, not slanted narratives like "the plane can handle this if the humans do the right thing". I don't know if I can trust BEA totally, but maybe for once the lawyers (the most despised profession on earth) will do their utmost to fill in the part of the story that Airbus, Air France, and BEA leave out. I hope so.

First of all, I don't think anyone here is passing moral judgement on the pilots, which is what you make it sound like. We know they would have liked to have saved the plane as much as anyone.

Second, I think we are aware that all parties involved are looking after their self-interests, which is why we hope the investigation will be unbiased, and not overlook the role that everyone played in the accident.

But if it should happen that the pilots bungled this, that too has to be acknowledged. What if it turns out that the plane could have indeed "handled this" had the humans done the right thing? At that point, you have to look beyond the cause (pilot error) and, as others have pointed out, look for the underlying reasons, or the causes of the cause.

While we may not entirely trust the BEA, the lawyers, and everyone involved in this process, I do think that at the end of the day, we will have a fairly accurate account of what happened. Some may try to spin it in different ways, but a lot of data will be part of the public record, and no one stands to gain by not learning whatever lessons come from this.

[Evan]

I'm sure training improvements will be a big part of the recommendations once the final report is completed and released.

I'm sure you are right about that.

I'm less sure that such recommendations will actually be enforced as a result.