The French magistrates have dropped charges against Air France and Airbus. It was just one of those existential things that happen in life when you place inadequately trained pilots in a commercial transport cockpit with no procedure for a known failure scenario. C'est la vie.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Air France Off the Hook on AF447
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThe French magistrates have dropped charges against Air France and Airbus. It was just one of those existential things that happen in life when for no known reason a highly-trained pilot executes a how to stall procedure when continuing to fly fat dumb and happy was better. Something that a even a dumbass, poorly-read inactive private pilot like 3BS knows better. C'est la vie.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
-
Originally posted by flashcrash View Post
The disaster highlighted an important public concern as to whether pilots are too dependent on technology and whether they retain the knowledge required to fly complex commercial aircraft. This concern continues to exist today.
Complex commercial aircraft are dependent on technology and therefore pilots must be trained to retain the knowledge required to fly complex commercial aircraft.
One lesson we should all have learned by now is that, when the punishment falls short of the crime, industry does not change its ways.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostThe concern I have is: how will [italics]we[/italics] achieve this?
2. I suggest that during a pilots first 40 to 60 hours of flight instruction, part the training covers that excessive pull ups can cause stalls and that a great fundamental rule is if things go bad (especially technological things) continue to fly the plane. Perhaps these items can be briefly reviewed when the pilot gets new ratings and recurrent trainings, and maybe an occasional competency check. From occasionally listening to ATL, it's possible that this is already done in some places and some airlines have no incidents of inexplicable, relentless pull ups.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
That makes a lot of sense. But... I'm gonna say it's 99.99% likely that during their first 40 to 60 hours of flight instruction, the pilots *were* trained that excessive pull ups can cause stalls. And I bet if you could communicate with the dead and ask them, they'd insist they *were* flying the plane.
The problem is what constitutes "flying the plane". It seems likely here that what happened is they realized that some of the information presented by their instruments was inaccurate, and for whatever reason jumped to the conclusion it was *all* inaccurate. They then proceeded to fly the plane as one would with no instruments, relying on visual cues and their own senses. The problem being of course that the few visual cues they may have had were misleading, and their senses were providing information that was even less accurate than (some of) the instruments.
I think there are a lot of people here (myself included) that think that "fly the plane" should have meant P+P=P, but these guys apparently felt differently. So IMHO the area of question is not "flying the plane" but the decision-making process (and the stress that may have affected same) that resulted in them using a faulty technique to fly the plane.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostFrom occasionally listening to ATL, it's possible that this is already done in some places and some airlines have no incidents of inexplicable, relentless pull ups.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostSo what are you saying? This is not done in France? This is not done at the nation's flag carrier airline?
There is part of me that agrees with you- what in the hell were the guys thinking, what in the hell were they taught, why did they do something so totally against such super incredible basic rules...training must be adjusted.
Eric is dead on 99,99% chance that training DID happen somewhat as I describe- but also, the crash DID happen.
Pure ass-hat speculation (where you and I strongly diverge) is that the pilots brains WERE full of type specific memory checklist QRH acronym stuff, so that when the warnings went off you get a geometric mental overload- 3 warnings, 3 possible failures per warning 3 possible solutions, 3 possible checklists, 3 types of startle factor and of the 243 things they had going through their mind, the basics of the stall got lost.
Lots of very smart people spent lots of time developing very good training scenarios- and yet, sadly, excrement transpired
And yes, factually, there are many airlines that have not had crashes from pilots pulling up in relentless, logically-defying matter.
...C'est la vie.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View Post...for whatever reason jumped to the conclusion it was *all* inaccurate. They then proceeded to fly the plane as one would with no instruments, relying on visual cues and their own senses...Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by elaw View PostIt seems likely here that what happened is they realized that some of the information presented by their instruments was inaccurate, and for whatever reason jumped to the conclusion it was *all* inaccurate. They then proceeded to fly the plane as one would with no instruments, relying on visual cues and their own senses. The problem being of course that the few visual cues they may have had were misleading, and their senses were providing information that was even less accurate than (some of) the instruments.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Yes it's baseless in terms of supporting facts, and I would never claim otherwise.
But let me ask this: we have tons of facts relating to what the pilots did, and what the result was. Are there any facts available that show conclusively *why* they did what they did? I'm pretty sure there aren't, so speculation is all we're left with. And that's what I did... speculate.Be alert! America needs more lerts.
Eric Law
Comment
-
Originally posted by 3WE View PostPure ass-hat speculation (where you and I strongly diverge) is that the pilots brains WERE full of type specific memory checklist QRH acronym stuff...[/B]
Problem is, these guys weren't taught how to improv without stepping on a mine. A simple, memorized and practiced DO THIS/DON'T DO THIS procedure for the first 1-2mins (DO FLY THIS PITCH, DO MOVE POWER LEVERS TO HERE, DO TURN THESE OFF, DO NOTHING ELSE, DO NOT FOLLOW THE ADR CHECK PROCEDURE, DO NOT ATTEMPT TO MAINTAIN ALTITUDE OR VERTICAL SPEED, DO NOT CHANGE FLIGHT LEVEL) would have defended against human factors until airspeeds returned and would have saved the day.
The thing is, we can't really blame Air France when no other airline was doing this training either. The scenario and the danger were clearly known, documented and discussed, prior to the crash, yet no CAA took action to provide such training and procedural guidance. All they did was address the probe design.
I truly believe this could have happened to the crew of any airline flying through the ITCZ at night. And probably still can.
Unless we can prosecute the BEA for manslaughter...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Evan View PostBut, in beating this crash to death, we've stumbled upon the realization that no appropriate 'memory checklist QRH acronym' thing exists for this scenario. It's improv time baby.
I could think 250 other ways to improvise that are more compatible with basic airmanship, common sense, and survival.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View PostWheee!!!! Im-prov-time, im-prove-time!!! I know, I know! Let's pull a 1.5 G 7000 fpm 2500 ft climb and when the stall warning starts shouting "stall stall" let's "pull up all the time" all the way to the ocean!!!!
[Specific to Gabe's comment]: Yeah, that's what I'd do...not
[deletion]
Originally posted by GabrielI and 99.99% of pilots, many whom are better trained than me could think 250 other ways to improvise that are more compatible with basic airmanship, common sense, and survival.Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Gabriel View Post3 altimeters, 2 vertical speed indicators... that were all sending consistent messages.
the stall warning starts shouting "stall stall" let's "pull up all the time" all the way to the ocean!!!!
Comment
Comment