Flight data from AF447 crash

[CCIP]

Oh, by all means. Would never take the credit away from the pilot - in the end, it's his decisions and skills that saved the day, the plane only helped a little

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by CCIP

Oh, by all means. Would never take the credit away from the pilot - in the end, it's his decisions and skills that saved the day, the plane only helped a little

What is interesting and a good question, do pilots get completely dependent on the aircraft electronics to the point of not being able to handle a situation such as this Air France disaster? In other words, do they become complacent in the routine? I understand most airline companies test and retest pilots. Training is ongoing.

[MH]

Looks similar to this disaster?

[CCIP]

Originally Posted by MH

Looks similar to this disaster?

Actually this one's the completely opposite. In this old scenario, it appears that the stall protection system worked TOO well, and decided that it knew better than the pilot what the airplane was doing, pitching down to increase airspeed and maintain altitude when the pilot input was to try and pull the plane up. Although the pilot did perform the maneuver without adequate preparation and with too low a safety margin.

On the surface, this AF disaster looks like the opposite - the instruments and stall protections failed completely, the airplane's systems had nothing to offer the pilot, and the pilot got confused and flew the airplane into a stall by pitching up - and the plane did exactly what the pilot asked it to do.

[AVGWarhawk]

Not really, no.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

What is interesting and a good question, do pilots get completely dependent on the aircraft electronics to the point of not being able to handle a situation such as this Air France disaster? In other words, do they become complacent in the routine? I understand most airline companies test and retest pilots. Training is ongoing.

That's an excellent question actually and one I doubt an airline would want to answer for fear of future claims against it.

Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two but the pilot should always have the ability to override the electronics should he feel it necessary.

[mako88sb]

There's been a ongoing discussion of this incident since it happened over at Airdisaster.com;

http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=49818

[Anthony W.]

The idea of "Stall Warning" indicated by the computer, and "Nose Up" inputs by the pilot go contradictory to me. Isn't there a video of a Panther landing on a carrier when he gets a stall warning, pitches up, rolls over, and smashes into the deck nose first?

[flatsixes]

I'm no pilot, but just playing flight sims you learn quickly how (and how not) to recover from a stall. It seems incredible to me that any driver capable of piloting an Airbus from one continent to another could possible forget something so basic. And it is not as though he didn't have enough altitude to have time to correct. The data are there, I know, but it's just so... odd that I'm having a tough time believing that's there's nothing else to it.

Gremlins, perhaps.

[magic452]

I remember reading a NTSB report in Aviation Week of a very similar incident.
It was an intercontinental flight B707? about 40 years ago.

The pitot tubes froze and gave the pilot higher air speed readings than he really had, he reduced power and increased angle of attack to bring down the air speed. Of course the plane stalled but he had enough altitude to recover and save the plane. He lost about 25,000 of the 30,000+ feet he had.
At the lower altitude the tubes unfroze giving a good air speed.
NTSB criticized the pilot for not using other interments to check the believability of his air speed as I remember.

Not so many computer aids back in those days may have worked in his favor?

Magic

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

Personally, I think it should be a mix of the two but the pilot should always have the ability to override the electronics should he feel it necessary.

I agree, however, the pilot should be trained to understand the function of electronic assist as CCIP points out. In Skully's case, allowing his physical input work with the electronic input to safely land the craft. Knowing whether to pull the plug on the electronics or work in unison.