Commercials pilots: stall warning, and they pull up! [Archive]

TomcatViP

09-01-2011, 11:29 AM

It's a very good question and a freaking matter to be concerned with as a citizen.

I do have noticed this trend since the last ten years with pilot "natural" skills falling down. The fact is that young commercial airliner pilots (as might be in military) hve less and less interest in aviation than the years before.

The career (old) advantages have drawn a new array of public in aviation jobs (pilots, engineer, mechanics) that does not makes any diff btw average technologies and aviation sciences. [I do recall engineer's talks about the relative technological advance btw auto industry and planes with a surprising opinions candidly surfacing as the end result -And I won't name the plane manufacturer's plant were this conversation has occured ;-) ]

The direct effect is that such individuals are not committed them self the way it should be. I mean that the level of awareness in competencies has drop from active research motivated by personal interest, passion and the desire to excel down-to minimal requirements for job qualifications.

Obviously this is not to be generalized to the majority of individuals but as more the aviation industry (in North country) is seen as a job heaven with sexy outfits (you see my pilots wings) the more it will drag in that kind of individuals and screen out by direct Newtonian relation the more talented ones.

Sadly when flying in Eu as a can packed passenger I can feel alrdy the diff btw companies only during climb out and landing.

But what is scaring me the most with the kind of story like the airfrance crash is the wall of smoke layered by professional representatives in such accidents when any Aviation professional should hve agreed much earlier that the pilots reacted strangely to the situation.

Note1 : A330 hve rear CG balancing resulting that "bckward" pilot's induced oscillations during stall might be needed to put the plane out of a stabilized stall - only pure speculation from me due to the size of the balancing arm

Note2: for the AirFrance fight 447 crash go to : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447

Wolf_Rider

09-01-2011, 02:17 PM

Cockpits of the future will carry a pilot and a dog...

The pilot's job is to feed the dog, and the dog's job is bite the pilot if he tries to touch anything

bongodriver

09-01-2011, 06:41 PM

Jungmann

09-01-2011, 09:21 PM

For an exhaustive look at this issue in regards to the Air France 447 crash, take a look at the several threads at http://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/447730-af447-wreckage-found.html. See what the pros say about it.

Jungmann

IvanK

09-01-2011, 10:17 PM

Keep the multi crew licences out of the cockpit would be a good start !

Blackdog_kt

09-02-2011, 12:42 AM

I was having a similar conversation today with a friend from back in high school who is a pilot in a charter airline.

I was asking his opinion about all the automation that exists and how in many accidents the subsequent investigation came up with pilots focusing all their attention on getting the automatic systems back online, instead of focusing on flying the aircraft first and foremost.

Let's just say he's not very appreciative of the existing trend. He told me he's glad that while flying a jet he still flies a smaller plane that is hand-flown for much of the flight and there are many people who really are in it because they like it.

He also said that a lot of people just get into it because it's a well-paying carreer that their parents can subsidize before them landing their first job. According to him, it's mostly this part of the demographic that tends to aim for landing a first job at a major airline in a big jet and a lot of them tend to end up being more of a systems monitoring agent than a pilot after a while.

I think this is because of the way aviation is in Europe. In areas of the world like Canada, Alaska, Australia or Africa, conditions and geography make smaller aircraft very useful. A sizable portion of pilots tend to get valuable stick time in bush-flying conditions, flying smaller aircraft with less sophisticated systems and not much in the way of automation. These guys really are in the driver's seat and they rack up not only a good amount of hours, but hours logged in diverse conditions and mostly under their direct control.

However, Europe is mostly about the big jets and in all fairness, it seems that it doesn't make sense for a new pilot to pursue a career that will start in smaller airframes and work up from that, simply because there's not enough demand for this kind of flying to create the needed jobs that will absorb pilots willing to start off small and work up from there.

I don't know how things are in terms of cargo airlines, but as far as passengers go it seems to be a case of big jets mostly with everything that entails for building pilot habits when a 25 year old is placed into a highly automated cockpit straight out of flight school.

Madfish

09-02-2011, 08:00 AM

I can assure you none of us are trained to pull up, the case in point was not the whole story, the aircraft was caught in severe weather with much windshear, and the pitot probes were blocked, the pilots had alot of confusing information to deal with, ultimately their response was a gamble...

You make it sound like you're a pilot with a major airline. Without looking into the details let me say one thing: I'm suprised that you say it's a gamble!

At that flight altitude with a stall warning - bad weather or not (should've been over-, underflown or avoided in the first place?) - it was only a gamble because they didn't do what would've been done ususally - either leveling out that plane OR descent to get out of that stall, or am I wrong there?

Would there be any reason to not descent until you get out of the stall or at least level it out before pulling the controls back?

I guess the age of safe travel is over until we get fully automated machines. Real people can't ever be good pilots by sitting there sleeping for the whole flight and only flying simulators back home to get some experience. That's not trained at all - it's the opposite. :-P

bongodriver

09-02-2011, 08:56 AM

You make it sound like you're a pilot with a major airline. Without looking into the details let me say one thing: I'm suprised that you say it's a gamble!

At that flight altitude with a stall warning - bad weather or not (should've been over-, underflown or avoided in the first place?) - it was only a gamble because they didn't do what would've been done ususally - either leveling out that plane OR descent to get out of that stall, or am I wrong there?

Would there be any reason to not descent until you get out of the stall or at least level it out before pulling the controls back?

I guess the age of safe travel is over until we get fully automated machines. Real people can't ever be good pilots by sitting there sleeping for the whole flight and only flying simulators back home to get some experience. That's not trained at all - it's the opposite.

No I'm Not, I fly Bizjets, but we all go through the same training....what difference would it make if I fly for a 'major airline' or not?
Why is it not a gamble? those guys found themselves in exeptional circumstances, with limited information, I don't need to fly for British airways to be able to say that whatever happened must have been extremely confusing for them and their actions were based on whatever information that lovely super-duper airbus computer alowed them to see.
as for replacing pilots......I'd like to see how you feel being replaced by a computer, thats what this world really needs isn't it?

Madfish

09-02-2011, 09:41 AM

You didn't answer my question. :-P The information was alright - they got a stall warning and pulled up. Considering their altitude this was the most unlogical thing to do I believe. They could've just nosed down a bit and see if that levels the plane out, clears the stall warning or makes it accelerate. Pulling up is not a gamble - it's just stupid.

And why it makes a difference? Because those huge airliners behave like cargo ships compared to racing boats. They are not just a simple chessna with the weight of a fly. Also they carry hundres of passengers, not just 2 or a dozen. There is a HUGE difference of responsability and you'd expect only the elite of the elite to fly a REAL passenger plane.

These guys clearly made a mistake and were unable to cope with the situation. From what I've read they just acted on some panic feeling instead of going through real emergency procedures also. Not a very good sign.

As for replacing pilots completely, times change. People get replaced by better tools and computers all the time. Feelings have nothing to do with this. How do you think the families of the people who died on that flight feel?
Let me tell you straight: everyone would've felt better if there was 50 backup computers instead of 2 untrained pilots. The people who died. The families of the dead. The ocean that wouldn've have to get polluted once again. Air France if they didn't lose a multi million dollar plane. And also the pilots who wouldn't be ashamed if they lived through it.

I can't see a single reason why you'd try a nose up with a stall warning. It's like when my car's automatic brake system tells me on a highway I'm about to crash into a car ahead but I override it and I accelerate because I gamble that it might be wrong. :-P

IvanK

09-02-2011, 09:44 AM

"You didn't answer my question. The information was alright - they got a stall warning and pulled up. Considering their altitude this was the most unlogical thing to do I believe. They could've just nosed down a bit and see if that levels the plane out, clears the stall warning or makes it accelerate. Pulling up is not a gamble - it's just stupid."

Err they got a darn sight more than just a Stall warning ... they got a whole series of conflicting warnings including many transient and erroneous airspeed readings/fluctuations and changes in flight control laws as well. That aside on the surface there apperrs to be some Human factors issues in that incident based on the interim report made after FDR and CVR evaluation.

http://www.bea.aero/fr/enquetes/vol.af.447/point.enquete.af447.27mai2011.en.pdf

Like all accidents though its better to wait until the full investigation is complete before making sweeping statements.

For the record here are the memory recall items for a stall in the biggest bus:

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/9286/stallrecall.jpg

As you can see AOA reduction is the first action.

Madfish

09-02-2011, 09:52 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447#Third_interim_report

Not sure which part of that I am unable to comprehend but by my logic they did wrong all they could. The only thing that would've been the right thing to do was to nose down. And that was even before the whole thing happened?

IvanK

09-02-2011, 10:24 AM

A simple stall warning is pretty straight forward event to handle. In an Airbus aeroplane its also quite an exceptional event.

What they got was a bucket load of trouble, Multiple warnings, erratic airspeeds, and a change in Flight control laws to boot. It was not a simple event.... they had their hands full.

All will be revealed when the final report comes out.

Anvilfolk

09-02-2011, 01:55 PM

I'm not so sure - I've not seen anything in these reports to indicate that any other sensors but speed were malfunctioning. I mean, the speed changed from 300kt to 60kt suddenly? Even if you don't notice such an absurd change, wouldn't you realize that you don't want to climb at 60kt?

According to the report, they were rolling around like crazy, 40 degrees and more. It doesn't seem it was because of their inputs, so it should've been obvious they were in a stall. They barely did nose-down inputs, mainly nose-up.

That's the thing that frightens me... you identify you are in a stall (or don't, despite what seems like relatively obvious signs), and your gut tells you to pull up?

Blackdog_kt

09-02-2011, 02:12 PM

In case of pitot related malfunction you can get all sorts of weird and conflicting instrument readouts. There was a case, i think in Chile, where the instruments were displaying warnings for overspeed while the stick shaker was activated. What is this you might ask?

Well, since these aircraft are usually fitted with fly by wire or otherwise assisted controls, the pilots don't have the same kind of tactile control feedback that simpler rod and linkage controls allow. In a cessna you can feel the stall because the stall buffet transfers through the control linkages to the yoke, in a fly by wire system you can't. So, these airliners have a feature that simulates this by shaking the control column when they near a stall, it's like force feedback.

Apply that knowledge to the above example and you'll see that a malfunctioning pitot system caused an overspeed warning on the caution lights panel at the same time that the stick was telling pilots they were stalling.

My point being, things are not that cut and dry. Especially at the speeds and altitudes these things fly where it's not that easy to judge airspeed by eyeballing it and simply looking at the ground, not to mention that the accident i'm talking about also happened at night.

Pilots are trained to reduce AoA when approaching a stall. Some might have botched this at times, but for the most part if a pilot is pulling up with a stall warning in place he's probably got a reason for it: conflicting information that forces him to make a choice between two completely opposite scenarios.

If you get simultaneous overspeed and stall warnings with no other reliable means to confirm which one is wrong what do you do? Well, if you're high enough and know you can recover the particular plane from a stall, i'd say go ahead and stall it mildly. If you're wrong you'll just loose a few thousand feet of altitude and then you know the overspeed is a false alarm that you can disregard from that point on, if you're right and you don't take any action however you'll overspeed it and have it disintegrate in mid-air.

In other words, it's all highly situational. In low altitude flight and provided some form of speed perception is available by looking out the window, i'd say avoid the stall first.

The problem (at least according to what an airliner pilot told me) is not so much why they did what they did, but the fact that too many young pilots in airliners are conditioned to go through the motions mechanically and rely a lot on automation, instead of flying the plane first and foremost.

TomcatViP

09-02-2011, 02:32 PM

With all my respect Sir stalling an airplane does not makes you feel like over speeding an airplane if you are listening to what your old trusty calibrated stomach can tell you ;)

For what I eared and read so far (thx for all the good links provided) those guys where falling down at 60kt 25+deg nose up. Next time you are on a roler-coaster, shut your eyes and see what kind of sensations you get (huuuu we are going dooooooooooooowwn, are we ?!!)

PS : this is a good thread :rolleyes:

The backgrd of the question as all have said is that we have system monitoring technicians behind the yokes that are applying lessons learnt at school stamped by sophisticated diploma were we shld hve passionated (or at least commited) individuals.

A simple GA flight logged hours rules per month shld hve been enough to prevent such drama (speculation and hypothesis) since it is now generally admitted that the thousands of hours logged in airliner does account only for a fraction of actual yokes handling time :oops: what you need in such critical situations.

But perhaps the downfall in pilot salary is the key here.

Ploughman

09-02-2011, 02:48 PM

I think a factor in the pilot's response to a stall warning is that below a certain speed their's no stall warning as any speed reading is invalid, then if you accelerate you get the stall warning from something like 60 knots through to the aircraft leaving the stall. In this instance the pilot in control seems to have lowered the nose, accelerated the aircraft to the point where the stall warning actuates, then perhaps thought he was entering a stall by putting the nose down, and pulled back up again, dropping the speed into the invalid range, and causing the stall warning to stop. The pilot was flying the plane to avoid the stall warning, rather than flying the plane to avoid the stall.

Iku_es

09-02-2011, 09:29 PM

The investigators have not yet determined the cause of the accident, so please don't be so fast calling the pilots incompetents (they weren't). And you should read what are the requirements to be hired by this company.
And the wikipedia is very usefull, but unreliable.

(Before being asked: I'm not an ATPL. Only a PPL that loves airplanes)

The Airbus aircrafts have a lot of safety mechanisms. One of them overrides the pilot inputs and stabilizes the plane if the pilot pushes the flying envelope outside safe limits.
For instance: Overspeeding, Dangerous AoA - Stall, Dangerous bank angle (more than 60º) ...
But these safety mechanism are disconnected if the pitot or the static ports are blocked. (By the way, airbuses don't have stick shakers as they don't have yokes. Only sidesticks :-) )

As BlackDog said, they probably had conflicting instrument readouts and if the altimeter was also malfunctioning ... the have very little chances,
IFR flying conditions, at night, without realiable instrument readouts...

They may also suffered of "Tunel vision", I'm not saying that it wasn't also pilots fault. But they didn't pull the nose up because they were retarded, as is suggested in the original article.

I can only guess the fear and confusion they felt in that cockpit...

Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding (Master Alarm)
ECAM RED MESSAGE: OVERSPEED
Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding (Master Alarm Again)
ECAM RED MESSAGE: STALL
Repeat several times
GPWS Warning: WUUUP WUUUP TERRAIN .... PULL UP
Ding Ding Ding Ding
- Crash - and no refly button ...

Example of Master Alarm, and ECAM Messages: 0:12 onwards

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QcOgLdwg9w

With all my respect Sir stalling an airplane does not makes you feel like over speeding an airplane if you are listening to what your old trusty calibrated stomach can tell you ;)

For what I eared and read so far (thx for all the good links provided) those guys where falling down at 60kt 25+deg nose up. Next time you are on a roler-coaster, shut your eyes and see what kind of sensations you get (huuuu we are going dooooooooooooowwn, are we ?!!)

PS : this is a good thread :rolleyes:

The backgrd of the question as all have said is that we have system monitoring technicians behind the yokes that are applying lessons learnt at school stamped by sophisticated diploma were we shld hve passionated (or at least commited) individuals.

A simple GA flight logged hours rules per month shld hve been enough to prevent such drama (speculation and hypothesis) since it is now generally admitted that the thousands of hours logged in airliner does account only for a fraction of actual yokes handling time :oops: what you need in such critical situations.

But perhaps the downfall in pilot salary is the key here.

I'm sorry Sir, with all my respect I strongly dissagree with you:

1. The fact is that in IFR conditions, you cant rely on your senses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_disorientation

I have experienced this in a PA28 as a passenger, and is very, very disturbing. Without watching the instruments, you can't tell after a couple of manouvers if you are climbing, falling, upside down.
I encourage you to try it, if you have the oportunity. I was amazed the first time.

2. Those technicians have allowed for instance aircraft landings every 2 minutes in the same runway, decreased the chances of accident, etc

3. GA flight logged hours rules are great for VFR, and lightweight aircrafts (Single or twin engined).
Airliners are flown following procedures, not following your guts (sorry I don't know the english expresion for that)

The problem (at least according to what an airliner pilot told me) is not so much why they did what they did, but the fact that too many young pilots in airliners are conditioned to go through the motions mechanically and rely a lot on automation, instead of flying the plane first and foremost.

Todays comercial flying is all about following procedures.
Most of the accidents happen because procedures are not followed.
I have a romantic idea of flying by the feel of the aircraft too, but I have to say, that following aircraft procedures has been proven as the safest way. Old hands hate this idea of course :)

Watch this video as example. They seem Robots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSfVPRS9b9Y

Life is easy for us armchair combat pilots ;-)

ruggbutt

09-02-2011, 09:52 PM

I have several airline pilots in my squadron, as well as a couple current fighter pilots (Hornets). The airline pilots are ex-fighter pilots as well. Anyhow, there has been a discussion on our squadron forums for quite a while about this. Especially about the Air France Airbus crash. Seems that all of the airlines are skimping on training to save money and hiring less experienced and lower pay grade guys while at the same time forcing higher paid/high hour guys to "retire". One of ours who flies for Northwest (now Delta) is retiring. We hear all about the charlie foxtrot that the airlines are now and commercial air travel is in worse shape than it was at the turn of the last century. You're going to see more crashes, more dead people and it will still be cheaper to pay off a lawsuit rather than pay for proper pilot training. Be it initial or ongoing refresher training.

It's not just the U.S. that is seeing this, one of ours is a 747 driver for Qantas. Same s**t, different airline and country.

bongodriver

09-03-2011, 08:05 AM

Madfish

09-03-2011, 10:44 AM

I agree ruggbutt.

@Iku_es, aren't you a bit overprotective of the pilots?

The reason I am asking is because the alarm scenario you describe wasn't what that flight experienced. But even if they would have - the issue I still have is that I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

Also please don't say that they have been scared by an alarm. Seriously, I may not be a pilot for a living but I got my fair share of experience with emergencies, even during flight. I don't want to disclose details but let me mention this: what do you think are they getting paid for? Trained for? So they can be scared when it counts? Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!
Collision with ground was highly unlikely when a plane exceeds its maximum permissable altitude I assume. ;) So what kept them from nosing down? I simply cannot understand.

Of course.......because someone who doesn't fly anything always know better, what a troll!!
Bongodriver, you're joking right? Why is it we always see the same defense to cover up for something that eventually killed hundreds? I wonder who is the troll here. :rolleyes: Why can't you just kindly elaborate how they followed procedures and why a nose up was necessary, even breaking the max altitude?

Also I get the suspicion you're not even a real pilot. At least not one with deep knowledge and manners. After all you should know that most of the people who now analyze the crash aren't pilots either. Many of those are "just" stupid engineer "trolls". I guess you get the idea and why I'm interested in an actual answer.

I'm not saying they are the cause for the crash - I'm saying they didn't follow common sense from what I can tell and most likely also violated procedures.

As I mentioned above, and I probably asked for about 3 times already, I'm just highly interested why they'd nose up during stall warnings? I'm sure you are much wiser than I / we are so could you enlighten me on the subject instead of assaulting me verbally? That'd be amazing.

Also let me ask you this: would you trust a pilot that pulls the nose up during a stall at that altitude with absolutely no risk of ground collision? Why didn't they just mayday and descend?

Suspiciously every time someone jumps to defend the aircrew they never actually explain their behavior wich was obviously not leading to a safe landing of the plane and violating many procedures. IvanK even posted them. Is it because there is no real explanation or is it just so top secret that it cannot be shared? :rolleyes:

Iku_es

09-03-2011, 12:44 PM

Maybe you're right Madfish, maybe I'm being overprotective with the pilots, I dont't know.

The fact is that I'm tired of listening on the news, "experten" attacking pilots after an accident without a basis, people that know nothing about airplanes, selfproclaimed aviation experts.
I don't know if this happens in your country, but here in Spain it's very common. Everyone knows about everything and talks a lot about it (and they don't have a clue, of course). This makes me feel sick sometimes.

But as I said, we don't have the official crash report, we only know the information that was leaked.
Let the pro's establish the causes of the accident, and then we judge the pilots.

I'm not saying that the scenario I described before is what actually happened. It was only an scenario, that maybe fits, i don't know.

Also I expressed myself bad (english is not my native language), I wasn't trying to say that the alarm scared them, the alarm itself is not scary, it's designed to catch the atention of the pilots because something dangerous it's happening. The thing that would have scared me is the inconsistent readouts, and the overhelming situation.
I think is a rule in all emergencies, but if you panic you're dead. You need to calm down, assess the situation and act acordingly.
Emergency situations are trained in sims to avoid panic, and are mandatory

But as I've said sever times, we don't have enough information. We know the stall warning was triggerd several times and that it kept going on and off, and that the pilot keep pulling the stick.
But what about the rest of the info?
- ECAM messages: These messages are crucial in order to know why the pilots reacted the way they did.
- Autothrust status: Were the autothrust enabled or overrided? If overrided:
- Power settings: Were the engines in IDLE, Manual, MCT, CLB, TO/GA?
- Alarms/Warnings: Were more alarms triggered? Bank angle, overspeed, smoke in the lavatory?
- Altimeter status?

I'm also very interested in the reason for the nose up. No pilot will deliberately raise the nose during a stall, I'm sure of that. Its counter-intuitive and a suicide. Anyone who has attended to a flying lesson will confirm that this is repeated several times, and trained.
Every real life pilot, and most of the simpilots knows this.

The only emergency reason to pull up without risk of ground collision I can think about in this moment is overspeeding and approaching VNE.

Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible
You're joking, aren't you?. I'll never fly in a plane with no pilots aboard. As a software designer, i'll not trust my life 100% to a piece of software without and human backup, sorry, I can't.

Madfish

09-03-2011, 02:39 PM

Hehe, don't worry about language - many of us aren't native english speakers either, including myself. :grin:

You're right about overspeeding. But that wasn't the case I'd assume - since they had reduced throttle because of turbulences.
Most likely there wasn't any altimeter problem either. (can still change but right now blackbox says altimeters were fine) But then again - how would the plane drop so fast? They must've know there was no way they were too low.

Much of the information you said we don't have is actually available already. The blackbox was analized and the reports reveal much of the info you request. Check the wikipedia link, sources are given there.
Of course, since it's not final, the situation can still change drastically. But it's very unlikely that the blackbox data will change that much.

Regarding human pilots though - what do we still need them for? All Airliners are fly by wire or optics. Humans don't fly the plane anymore - they only make decisions. Decisions that sometimes save or destroy the plane of course.
I'm very sure we'll have "pilots" for a long time still but the question is are they still pilots? In the past I'd have said yes but for the future...?

Some human input will probably always be necessary. But 90% of the pilots duties can be done by a computer and much more efficiently and safer. Even in emergencies - checklists like back in the old days? A computer could run them in under a second.

Further the probability of human error is actually extremely high. And even just driving a car you realize that concentration is a big problem already. Especially when you're basically just a passenger as well - sitting there and dozing off. Humans are by far the most critical element - both during the design process and also during the service time of course.

I believe the pilot of the future would have to be educated almost only in emergency situation management. Flying itself could be done by the computer.

So as it'd appear I'm the opposite of you regarding that. I'd very much prefer a computer over a human pilot. :-P Of course this will still take a few years but I believe it's possible. And also I believe that the area of real influence that a pilot still has over a plane is shrinking more and more. This goes especially for military pilots which are basically outdated already and will be completely replaced by autonomous drones and remote controlled systems within the next 30 years I assume.

It'd be very interesting to see how many airliner accidents could've been prevented if a computer was controlling the plane. I know a few. Contrary it'd also be interesting to see how many accidents of computer failure didn't result in a crash because a human pilot saved the plane.

A great example this reminds me off was the hudson river incident. To my knowledge the pilot could've made it back to an airport but no one even questions his decision because things went well. Lucky pilot or just an ace? But then again, this was a gamble that, although surprisingly, went extremely well.

bongodriver

09-03-2011, 02:51 PM

I agree ruggbutt.

@Iku_es, aren't you a bit overprotective of the pilots?

The reason I am asking is because the alarm scenario you describe wasn't what that flight experienced. But even if they would have - the issue I still have is that I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

Also please don't say that they have been scared by an alarm. Seriously, I may not be a pilot for a living but I got my fair share of experience with emergencies, even during flight. I don't want to disclose details but let me mention this: what do you think are they getting paid for? Trained for? So they can be scared when it counts? Even more of a clear sign that human pilots should be replaced as soon as possible.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!
Collision with ground was highly unlikely when a plane exceeds its maximum permissable altitude I assume. ;) So what kept them from nosing down? I simply cannot understand.

Bongodriver, you're joking right? Why is it we always see the same defense to cover up for something that eventually killed hundreds? I wonder who is the troll here. :rolleyes: Why can't you just kindly elaborate how they followed procedures and why a nose up was necessary, even breaking the max altitude?

Also I get the suspicion you're not even a real pilot. At least not one with deep knowledge and manners. After all you should know that most of the people who now analyze the crash aren't pilots either. Many of those are "just" stupid engineer "trolls". I guess you get the idea and why I'm interested in an actual answer.

I'm not saying they are the cause for the crash - I'm saying they didn't follow common sense from what I can tell and most likely also violated procedures.

As I mentioned above, and I probably asked for about 3 times already, I'm just highly interested why they'd nose up during stall warnings? I'm sure you are much wiser than I / we are so could you enlighten me on the subject instead of assaulting me verbally? That'd be amazing.

Also let me ask you this: would you trust a pilot that pulls the nose up during a stall at that altitude with absolutely no risk of ground collision? Why didn't they just mayday and descend?

Suspiciously every time someone jumps to defend the aircrew they never actually explain their behavior wich was obviously not leading to a safe landing of the plane and violating many procedures. IvanK even posted them. Is it because there is no real explanation or is it just so top secret that it cannot be shared? :rolleyes:

Madfish......The main reason nobody is explaining this to you is because like 'most' sensible people we will wait for the 'official' report on exactly what happened, if you really want me to tell you why they 'pulled up' then I'm sorry I can't, but I can tell you that any pilot will not 'pull up' if the only situation he is faced with is a stall, but the Air France incident is much more than just a 'stall', they encountered something much more elaborate and were being fed information (in all probabbility) that was conflicting and they were left to make action on a 'best guess' basis (that is why I used the analogy of a gamble)
I personally don't care if you believe I'm a pilot or not and won't waste any time trying to convince you, but I will explain that 'pulling up' during a stall is not the biggest mistake, in actual fact 'most' aircraft will suffer no ill effects from keeping the stick back in a stall, all that happens is the aircraft remains in a stalled condition and descends at a highish rate.....but if you put a rudder input in in this condition then you 'could' induce a spin, I have stalled the Learjet in real life (not in the sim) and it is a pussycat in the stall, I can't honestly say I have flown any aircraft that has undesireable stall effects, but I have flow a few that will kill you if you don't handle the spin correctly.

bongodriver

09-03-2011, 02:58 PM

Oh and on the subject of replacing pilots with computers........I pray to god it never happens, and that is not because I am frightened to lose my job, if you believe the technology being developed is primarily for safety then think again, it is really designed to save money, automation is saving the airlines huge amounts of money because it fly's the aircraft marginally more efficiently than a real pilot, fly-by-wire's main benefit is to save weight....nothing to do with saving lives....just money....again, computers fail, that is why there are at least 7 in the Airbus but you only need 2 pilots, what if the aircraft is hit by lightning?......trust me, regardless of all the bonding the avionics are not immune.....zap and all 7 shiny computers are a box of junk, do you think that a computer would have had the judgement and skill to put an airbus into the Hudson river after a double flameout?....NOPE!!!

el0375

09-03-2011, 03:14 PM

very nice and informative thread, thanks to all

TomcatViP

09-03-2011, 04:17 PM

do you think that a computer would have had the judgement and skill to put an airbus into the Hudson river after a double flameout?....NOPE!!!

I guess it will just send an email to the company lawyers saying : Time to Fire UP !

@Ikus :
Thousands of pilots are saying that it was strange they did this pull up , it might be time to stop arguing it was not. Air France is a great company, Airbus have done some great design in the past but my own butt is and the ones of the hundreds of passengers in back of that plane hve surely been reliable enough to makes them understand how horrific was the situation for those interminable seconds.

That is my point : they should hve know they were stalling. If they didn't then their competencies are questionable. If they did hence the situation was far more complex than false instruments indications or ill designed Pitot with even the some of the flight automation ctrl being questionable.

Last but not least, the fact that the crash site was discovered only days after Airbush loose the Tanker contest is also questionable.

Like all the others here, MadFish, RuggButt, MadDog, Bongo (sry if I forgot some) I think that it is a freaking concerning case of accident just like were the series of strange flame-out a couple of years ago. Also the problem of the "Experteen" as you mentioned it is not that of the ones on the internet community or any stupid bloggers. It's the ones in the real world that have the same financial interests or jobs etc.. (refer to my earlier post)

Personally I don't like experts. I am a Cartesian and like to doubt even of my own thinking.

~S!

zipper

09-04-2011, 12:18 AM

Wow - interesting thread.

The black box data has been released and won't change, unless it is determined to be faulty (not likely).

Soooooo

My gut reaction (as a private pilot and airbus mechanic) is that the bad airspeed indication gave them the impression that the ENTIRE pitot/static system (or just the static) was unreliable (airspeed, altitude, rate of climb) but only the pitot system (airspeed) was. They may have remembered the 757 in South America that went down due to blocked static ports. This would explain why they didn't seem to react too adversely to the dropping altitude (125mph straight down, 107mph forward, with the nose up more than 15 degrees). But then, why react (either way, let alone backwards) to the stall warning?

The AoA and ball (attitude indicator) should have been used to keep nose pointed at the horizon at a reasonable speed while they pursued the pitot/static problem. My instrument instructor back in the '70s hammered home a fundamental instrument scan along with instrument cross checking - he was always throwing instrument failure(s) at me as well as discussing how to determine different failures (he was very old school). It just seems like if they had refly and a moment they would have easily gotten it right the second time.

For anyone who is nervous about Airbus fly-by-wire ... the 787 will be be a real eye-opener.

PS. these planes are hit ALL THE TIME by lightning - I helped work 28 individual lightning strikes on a 320 a while back, and we had another one with over 100. (Once we had a 757 lose a radome in flight due to lightning.)

Davinci..

09-07-2011, 05:48 AM

I simply cannot think of any reason for a nose up but of many for a nose down. Is there actually a single reason for a nose up during a stall warning?.

I absolutely agree that is possible the pilots aren't the cause for the crash at all. What I'm saying is that from what the blackbox reveiled so far they didn't act according to what normal procedures would be and what you'd expect.

I'm just extremely interested in an actual reason for a nose up in that situation. You and for example IvanK defended the pilots behavior but on what basis? Procedures during a stall warning are as seen above: Nose down!

This is exactly why Bongo is suggesting people who aren't pilots(ie, desktop pilots), have absolutely zero place commenting on issues like this..

Cant think of one situation why you would pull up during a stall.. skip to 1:20
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1daPJJKhEE#t=01m20s

This video deals primarily with turbo props, and icing(which was likely what happened in Buffalo). Now, do i think this is what the pilots in this case were doing/thinking.. No.. but I think you could see, knowing what you are talking about, and not knowing what you are talking about(cant think of a single reason to pull up during a stall), are very different things..

Those pilots had a tremendous amount of information being thrown at them. And most of it, was miss-information, that simply didn't make any sense. A blocked pitot tube is a horrible thing, compound that with IFR conditions, and you've got a real mess on your hands..

From the wiki page on the incident
"Roughly 20 seconds later, the pilot decreased the plane's pitch slightly, air speed indications became valid and the stall warning sounded again and sounded intermittently for the remaining duration of the flight, but stopped when the pilot increased the plane's nose-up pitch."

Here is a situation where, pitching up stops the stall warning, and dropping the nose restarts the stall warning, no valid airspeed data, and no visual reference to tell what is right, and what is wrong. You think there is a textbook solution to this? Hindsight is 20/20, and armchair pilots have the luxury of it.. These guys didn't..

If you aren't a pilot, you should probably keep quiet, because there is a damn good chance you don't have a clue what you are talking about(especially what these guys went through). After all, you cant think of a single situation where you would pull up in a stall..

TomcatViP

09-07-2011, 12:19 PM

Who are you to tell others to shut up ?

Yes it's a difficult job environment but does it means that we have to excuse any potential fails ? No !

By the way didn't they have a valid instrumented alt indication ?

Regarding icing conditions at low alt that's it's a totally different situation : it's an external factor !

bongodriver

09-07-2011, 12:57 PM

Yes it's a difficult job environment but does it means that we have to excuse any potential fails ? No !

until a full and clear examination of the case is concluded nobody know who or what failed......no excuses being made as far as I can see.

By the way didn't they have a valid instrumented alt indication ?

Debateable......with a failed pitot/static system then there is no valid alt or airspeed data.

Regarding icing conditions at low alt that's it's a totally different situation : it's an external factor !

just like many other potentially fatal situations.....windshear/microburst, the recovery from encountering windshear actually requires the aircrew to pull up to the stick shaker (but must not go beyond into the stall) and use full power and maintain untill a positive indication of climb is achieved and all indications of widshear are clear, icing conditions can't be ruled out given their situation, ice is commonly encountered in storms and we use the anti ice system in conditions of visible water vapour in temparatures between +10 to -40, not sure how it makes sense to rule out icing...it is still a condition that requires the correct actions to recover from.

I might add that in the case of encountering windshear, irrespective of how correctly the crew have reacted they are at the mercy of the conditions, the crews actions can only gurantee the best chance of making it through but the outcome is down to the strength and duration of the event and perhaps the altitude the event is encountered given that it is mainly only a problem if encounterted during approach or departure.

TomcatViP

09-07-2011, 01:33 PM

"Potential" means what it means : this is not what has happened for sure. ;-)

A pitot is not a static pressure probe for a barometric alt indication or I might have loose some years of engineering in the move :confused:

Also no stick shaker on the 'Bus as it was already pointed out (side stick)

[SpeculationMode : ON]

Have a look there I found that interesting : http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/belfast/ADIRU_faults&Tolerances-2.htm

[SpeculationMode : OFF ?]

bongodriver

09-07-2011, 01:42 PM

"Potential" means what it means : this is not what has happened for sure.

Understood and merely suggested no excuses are being made at this time....

A pitot is not a static pressure probe for a barometric alt indication or I might have loose some years of engineering in the move

Obviously I can't comment on the Airbus system but the pitot probes on the Learjet 45 are combined pitot/static probes, as far as I know this is a common arrangement on most civil trasports these days, subject to the nature of a failure then it is possible to loose both sources of data.

Also no stick shaker on the 'Bus as it was already pointed out (side stick)

Yes I know, wasn't using this example in relation to the event in question, just a small insight into techniques used to recover from adverse situations, it only applies to aircraft with a yoke.......i.e. boeing and everything else appart from Airbus.