Smilin' Jack


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Smilin' Jack   » Specific Airline Discussions   » TWA   » Air France (Page 2)

 
This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Author Topic: Air France
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sub,

I don't want to ride on an Airbus period. And I dislike outsourcing to any other nation but...TWA leased 4 or 5 new MD-80s which were assembled in China. Flew them many times. Couldn't tell the difference.

Bob

Posts: 1937 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Subsonic Transport     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I forgot about those MD80's. As a passenger, I wouldn't have known either unless I had the "N" number.

I was just reading ATWonline. Here's the latest on other A330's:

The US National Transportation Safety Board last week said it is investigating two recent incidents involving A330s operated by TAM and Northwest Airlines in which the airspeed and altitude indications "may have malfunctioned."

NWA is a unit of Delta Air Lines. Both aircraft landed safely. Such malfunctions are suspected in the May 31 loss of an Air France A330-200 (ATWOnline, June 10).

NTSB said the TAM incident took place on May 21 while Flight 8091 was en route from Miami to Sao Paulo. "Initial reports indicate that the flight crew noted an abrupt drop in indicated outside air temperature, followed by the loss of the Air Data Reference System and disconnections of the autopilot and autothrust, along with the loss of speed and altitude information," the board stated. It said the flight crew used backup instruments and primary data was restored in about 5 min. The flight landed at Sao Paulo with no further incident and there were no injuries or damage to the aircraft.

NTSB said it also became aware of "another possibly similar incident" that occurred on June 23 and involved an NWA aircraft flying between Hong Kong and Tokyo.

Separately, ATWOnline received what purportedly is a first-hand account of the NWA event, although this website was unable to confirm its authenticity. According to this account, the incident took place at approximately 39,000 ft. around 10 a.m. local time as the aircraft was entering Japanese airspace. Weather was described as mostly clear with occasional isolated areas of rain and cloud tops at about 41,000 ft. Outside air temperature was put at -50C, TAT -21C.

As the A330 followed other aircraft in trail, weather radar indicated a large area of heavy rain at a lower altitude. The radar showed light precipitation at the A330's altitude, which the crew took to be ice crystals. The aircraft entered the cloud tops and experienced light to moderate turbulence. After about 15 sec. it encountered moderate rain that was visible on the windshield.

The pilots noted that the cockpit suddenly became very warm and humid and a few seconds later all three airspeed indicators rolled back to 60 kt. and autopilots and autothrottles disengaged, as did rudder limit protection. "The Master Warning and Master Caution flashed," accompanied by "the sound of chirps and clicks letting us know these things were happening."

At this point the captain hand-flew the aircraft on the shortest vector out of the rain at "the recommended 83%N1 power setting." Airspeed indicators returned briefly but failed again. The failure lasted for 3 min. All instrumentation eventually returned to normal but the aircraft remained in Airbus "alternate law" for the remainder of the flight.


by ATWOnline Staff

Posts: 499 | From: Buffalo, NY  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Without the "Black Boxes".....

Just for the sake of conversation.........Most of us over the years have refrained from trying to be amateur aircraft accident investigators, for which we can be proud. (and also kept us from looking too stupid for being wrong)

With this in mind and since it appears "The Black Box" has not been located to date and should there be no other portions of the aircraft found.........does anyone believe that sufficient information can be gained from analyzing the vertical fin and attach bolts to reach an honest "Probable Cause"?

Or, have most of us already formed that opinion? [Wink]

edited to add a smile [Wink]

[ 07-16-2009, 17:57: Message edited by: extwacaptain ]

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
jeff shrewsbury
Post Captain
Member # 2910

Icon 1 posted      Profile for jeff shrewsbury     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Air France Reviewing 'Every Factor' That Could Have Caused AF447 Crash. Air France will review crew training and the quality of its weather information, CEO Pierre-Henri Gourgeon said last week in an interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, adding that not being able to detect a severe storm on radar may have played a role in the May 31 A330-200 accident that killed all 228 passengers and crew. He noted that another AF flight entered the area where AF447 was lost shortly after the doomed A330 last relayed information and the pilot of that following aircraft reported that he crossed a turbulent area that had not been picked up by his radar and "he avoided a much worse [area of turbulence] by manually increasing the sensitivity of his radar." He added, "Flight 447 didn't have the good fortune to encounter that first warning," which might have caused its pilots not to adjust their radar and spot the "very active storm" that the A330 encountered.
Posts: 35 | From: Milford, NJ  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At this time, it would seem appropriate to say: "Sorry for starting a second topic(Titled: "Very Interesting") about this same subject."

Hopefully, future thoughts, comments concerning Air France Flight 447 will be found under this (Jeff's) topic: "AIR FRANCE".


Randy Kramer

[ 07-27-2009, 15:56: Message edited by: extwacaptain ]

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where's that/my TWA Policy and Procedures Manual when it is needed? Even though it has not been revised for some time.......there's something in that thing about flying thru turbulent areas which keeps flashing back since the loss of AF 447.

Certainly some/much of the thinking and recommended procedures may well have changed since the earlier days of the jet airline operation....And some are probably as originally written.

Do any of the TWA pilots on the board remember a statement in our manual concerning selecting altitude (or changing altitude) when encountering enroute turbulence? Does the recommendation to not climb above Flight level 310 unless it can be determined it will be smooth, ring a bell? (Accepting the fact that at times there may well be other considerations).

Just trying to get back up to speed before I stall out.

Randy

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Irish     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Randy,

Do I recall correctly that if the OAT is dropping you descend and vice versa? I'm not suggesting that this was in the P&P manual but a technique offered in meteorology class.

Paul

Posts: 1634 | From: Hampton, NH  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul,

My memory must be made of plastic.......Just when it is needed most, it leaves me.


Randy

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
ernieh
Post Captain
Member # 51

Icon 1 posted      Profile for ernieh   Email ernieh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The use of OAT was simply a guide to use to avoid the tropopause(sp). Most clear air turbulance occurs within 2000 ft. of the trop, mostly below. The FOP had numerous diagrams to show areas to avoid.

TWA even showed the trop height on our flight plans. AA does not and probably never will because the idea didn't originate there.

The idea is simple for those who don't remember. The temp is basically constant above the trop, and decreases about 2 degrees per 1000 ft. below until the trop is reached.

Thus if you are in smooth air above the trop and the temp starts to increase, the TH is getting higher and you need to climb. If in smooth air below the trop and the temp decreases the TH is getting lower and you need to descend.

I explained this numerous times to AA natives I flew with and most felt that if TH really mattered, AA would have it on their flight plans too.

Maybe, that's one of the reasons AA has injured more pax and fa's in turbulance than any other airline.

Posts: 129 | From: Chesterfield, MO  |  IP: Logged
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Irish     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Ernie. That's at least one piloting technique that hasn't been flushed out of my mind in 12 wonderful years of retirement.

Paul

Posts: 1634 | From: Hampton, NH  |  IP: Logged
B767300ER
Post Captain
Member # 327

Icon 1 posted      Profile for B767300ER   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ernieh:
The use of OAT was simply a guide to use to avoid the tropopause(sp). Most clear air turbulance occurs within 2000 ft. of the trop, mostly below. The FOP had numerous diagrams to show areas to avoid.

TWA even showed the trop height on our flight plans. AA does not and probably never will because the idea didn't originate there.

The idea is simple for those who don't remember. The temp is basically constant above the trop, and decreases about 2 degrees per 1000 ft. below until the trop is reached.

Thus if you are in smooth air above the trop and the temp starts to increase, the TH is getting higher and you need to climb. If in smooth air below the trop and the temp decreases the TH is getting lower and you need to descend.

I explained this numerous times to AA natives I flew with and most felt that if TH really mattered, AA would have it on their flight plans too.

Maybe, that's one of the reasons AA has injured more pax and fa's in turbulance than any other airline.

Don't forget, Ernie: AA invented flying. Can't tell those guys anything, because they know-it-all!
Posts: 159 | From: Studio City,CA  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Captn' Ernie & Captn' Paul,

This has been an excellent "refresher" on how to handle the turbulence associated with the tropopause.....And appreciated.

As Yogi Berra might have said, "Now I know why I forgot to remember it."....It only came into play for the high flyers. With the average trop level between 36,000' and 38,000' ......in order for a 727 to climb above, to an appropriate altitude for the direction of flight, probably would have required dumping fuel......And that would have required writing a few letters. [Eek!]

Thankfully, Ol' TWA allowed us the discretion of choosing smooth altitudes and accepted the increased fuel burn cost. (Never once was a chosen altitude questioned by management.)

What a GREAT airline to have worked for!


signed: 350 and below

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
nyc6035
Post Captain
Member # 423

Icon 1 posted      Profile for nyc6035     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by extwacaptain:
Captn' Ernie & Captn' Paul,

With the average trop level between 36,000' and 38,000' ......in order for a 727 to climb above, to an appropriate altitude for the direction of flight, probably would have required dumping fuel......And that would have required writing a few letters. [Eek!]

Capt Randy,

Didn't you also fly the L1011? What was the service ceiling on that equipment?

Posts: 281 | From: Chappaqua, NY  |  IP: Logged
Bob Ritchie
Post Captain
Member # 1035

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Bob Ritchie     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ernieh:
The use of OAT was simply a guide to use to avoid the tropopause(sp). Most clear air turbulance occurs within 2000 ft. of the trop, mostly below. The FOP had numerous diagrams to show areas to avoid.

TWA even showed the trop height on our flight plans. AA does not and probably never will because the idea didn't originate there.

The idea is simple for those who don't remember. The temp is basically constant above the trop, and decreases about 2 degrees per 1000 ft. below until the trop is reached.

Thus if you are in smooth air above the trop and the temp starts to increase, the TH is getting higher and you need to climb. If in smooth air below the trop and the temp decreases the TH is getting lower and you need to descend.

I explained this numerous times to AA natives I flew with and most felt that if TH really mattered, AA would have it on their flight plans too.

Maybe, that's one of the reasons AA has injured more pax and fa's in turbulance than any other airline.

Reminds me of the old tale...

Middle of the afternoon over N/W continental USA. Someone asks a United flight how the ride is at 36,000?

Answer: "Smooth as silk." Other guys chime in asking about the ride. United answers..."if you guys had attended UAL flight training you would know that it is always smooth in the Trop."

After a few moments someone says..."F*** UAL's flight training!"

ATC says..."Did someone say "F*** UAL flight training?"

"Yeah" someone answers....."They said F*** UAL's flight training."

I wasn't there!! An OZA/TWA/AA pilot would have never been so crude. [Eek!]

Bob

Posts: 1937 | From: Warren County, Missouri  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While searching Google for a recurrent training course about "coffin corner", the following article was found concerning thoughts about AF 447.
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2009/06/08/the-coffin-corner-and-a-mesoscale-maw/

Hopefully it will be of some interest.


Randy Kramer

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Irish     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Randy,

That was very interesting. Great writers have the ability to translate complex subjects into simple language meaningful to the average reader. It seems to me that O'Brien got it just right, except for...

His contention that the speed difference between mach buffet and stall speed was 25 KIAS is a little suspect. If I recall correctly, when we did clean high-altitude stalls in the 707 sim the onset of buffet was around 200-220 KIAS and wasn't cruise KIAS around 280 KIAS? Do I recall correctly?

Paul

Posts: 1634 | From: Hampton, NH  |  IP: Logged
Capn Eddie Ricketyback
Post Captain
Member # 3010

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Author's Homepage   Email Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Randy & Paul,

I am also convinced that the "coffin corner" is much larger than O'Brien says in his otherwise excellent post. As a matter of fact, somebody pointed that out in this comment:
quote:
At 35,000 feet, there is a more than 100 KIAS (knots indicated airspeed) difference between the plane’s clean stall speed and it’s never exceed speed, not a mere 28 mph.
That looks about right to me.

O'Brien made a follow-up post that may be of interest:
http://trueslant.com/milesobrien/2009/06/10/the-paradox-of-simplicity/

I think this is the best part:
quote:
The joke is that in the not too distant future, flight crews will consist of one human pilot and an ill-tempered junkyard dog. The pilot is there to watch the computers fly the airplane – and the dog there to bite him if he tries to touch the controls.


[ 08-11-2009, 13:54: Message edited by: Capn Eddie Ricketyback ]

Posts: 329 | From: South Carolina  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paul and Billy,

Although most of my flight time was spent well below the altitudes flown by the U-2, I suspect Mr. Brian may be a wee bit off with that 25 knot figure.....or the earth may eventually have an aluminum coating. [Wink]

Paul, you have a PM. (and a photographic memory)

Randy

Captn' Billy,

After a day of "Googling", the following information was found under: "Stall speed of A300-200 at 35,000 feet"

Stall speed at 35,000 feet....472MPH
Upper limit at 35,000 feet....567MPH
Window.....................472-567MPH

BIG Windows are beautiful.
____________________________________________
Edited to add following link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/garcia07012009.html
Scroll down to:
The New Crisis in Aviation

[ 08-13-2009, 09:10: Message edited by: extwacaptain ]

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
Capn Eddie Ricketyback
Post Captain
Member # 3010

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Author's Homepage   Email Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
HaHa. I really have to get another hobby! I saw those speeds and got really confused for a moment, and then I deduced that they had to have been TAS, so I did a little Google dance meself and made some conversions to IAS & knots. Looks like the stall speed would be about 226 KIAS, or 410 KTAS. Didn't calculate the max speeds (I'm not that obsessive!). See:
http://www.paragonair.com/public/aircraft/calc_TAS.html

Now aren't you glad you know this now?!

Posts: 329 | From: South Carolina  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Captn' Billy,

I'm still carrying a pocket size computer that my brother gave me during the propeller days.
It only computes up to 30,000 feet, but that's okay. It only cost him a dollar and 3 cents and encouraged lower flying,....... [Roll Eyes]

Anyway, it would appear that AF 447 had an approximate 45 knot "window." (IAS)

If anyone can come up with a greater number it would probably be appreciated by any friends we may still have as passengers.


Low and fast

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
Capn Eddie Ricketyback
Post Captain
Member # 3010

Icon 1 posted      Profile for Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Author's Homepage   Email Capn Eddie Ricketyback   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by extwacaptain:
Anyway, it would appear that AF 447 had an approximate 45 knot "window." (IAS)

Yeah, and that window is between stall speed and MAX. He was obviously cruising at a lower speed than that, so it looks like O'Brien's 28 knot window wasn't so far off after all. I don't remember anything about 'windows' in the 707s, 727s, MD-80s, L1011s and the 747s I flew, but I've been out of the biz for more than 23 years now and my memory, while never that great, has not improved over the years.
Posts: 329 | From: South Carolina  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Capn Eddie Ricketyback:
I don't remember anything about 'windows' in the 707s, 727s, MD-80s, L1011s and the 747s I flew, . [/QB]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Captn' Billy,

Nor do I.......................The probable reason being: TWA never encouraged us to consider "economy" ahead of passenger safety and comfort.


That's my opinion.

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381

Icon 1 posted      Profile for extwacaptain     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Maybe it's time for those who design and build our airplanes to take another "Test Flight".

The most convincing way to dispel passenger/public concerns about the strength and reliability of plastic flight controls and advantages of "Fly-By-Wire" technology would, in my opinion, be: ............Load-up one of your planes with many, many of your top management, including your best design engineers. Take that thing out and find some of the most ferocious weather pilots will ever encounter at the most undesirable altitude. (Make certain there is only enough fuel on board to allow for little if any weather deviation.)

And now.....without breaking a sweat and with complete confidence, fly thru several minutes of severe turbulence....Keep the cameras rolling and IF you should break out in the clear, turn back and repeat several times. Find a few more thunderstorms and challenge every one of them. At the end of such a "Test Flight", if every one on board agrees that our modern airliners are the safest possible, .....well, that would convince this old guy with a grey moustache.

Looking forward to viewing a film of the flight.


Randy Kramer

Posts: 1158 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.  |  IP: Logged



This topic is comprised of pages:  1  2 
 
Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | Smilin' Jack's Aviation Directory



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0