|
Author
|
Topic: Latest on AF Flt. 447
|
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381
|
posted
Everyone has undoubtedly read the AP story today concerning Air France Flt. 447......Really not much if anything new.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=14186314
It was noticed that more training is being recommended for all pilots to help them fly planes manually and handle a high-altitude stall......Well, if this is just now being recognized as a problem, maybe, just maybe a very thorough review on how to avoid thunderstorms might also be in order.
Given a choice, it would be my preference to ride in the back-end of a plane being flown by pilots who avoided at all cost, any and all TRW activity, rather than with someone who could maybe get the thing right-side up after loosing it.
(Better yet.....the skill to avoid severe weather PLUS being familiar with how to handle a stall. Really, that's not asking too much.) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 929 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocky Dollarhide
Post Captain
Member # 546
|
posted
Did anyone say anything about 20 miles minimum to avoid cells? Through training, we can avoid reinventing the wheel. What a tragic result!
Posts: 120 | From: Aberdeen Golf Club
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
Reading the article really made me sick. Not the pilots but the reporter. Talk about amping up the story.
"..wings gasping for air."
"The solution to a stall is to lower the nose to grab air."
Then at the bottom of the article he says that the pilots didn't talk about the passemgers about to die. Well yeah he's trying to save the plane which automatically means he's trying to save the passengers.
In my opinion, a bad article.
Why would a pilot react to a stall warning when none of the instruments or outside visual referrences validate the warning in the first place. Which one is correct?
Posts: 418 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
XHNLEIC
Post Captain
Member # 1481
|
posted
Dan...I read that article as well and not being a pilot, just a passenger I was also amazed that that reporter made that statement "the pilots didn't talk about the passengers about to die."
If I were a passenger on that flight [or any other in such peril] I would want my pilots to stick to the emergency at hand and not be on the PA telling us "ladies and gentlemen, I apologize but unfortunately we are all about to die"!
Ridicules reporting! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posts: 168 | From: Laughlin/Bullhead City/Honolulu
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
I recently read an article in Flying a month ago and it really got my attention. It is an interesting read regardless but check out the second page and the 4th paragraph. Tell me, when compared to the AF crash, it doesn't make you say, "hmmmmmm." You may know how to operate an a/c but do you know how to fly it?
Flying
Posts: 418 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
extwacaptain
Prop Wash
Member # 381
|
posted
"Final report" scheduled for release this Thursday....July 5,th.
Posts: 929 | From: Encino, Ca. U.S.A.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish
Post Captain
Member # 722
|
posted
Well! How did you like Robert Soulas' comment on the opinions of expert investigators?
Robert Soulas, who lost his daughter and son-in-law in the crash, says investigators said the flight director system indicated the "erroneous information" that the plane was diving downward, "and therefore to compensate, the pilot had a tendency to pull on the throttle to make it rise up."
Now I know why we have throttles as well as thrust levers in modern jet transport aircraft!
Posts: 1414 | From: Hampton, NH and Naples, FL
| IP: Logged
|
|
Subsonic Transport
Post Captain
Member # 2139
|
posted
A clip from a Fox News article:
"In one fatal decision, the report says, one of the co-pilots nosed the Airbus A330 upward during a stall -- instead of downward, as he should have -- because of false data from sensors about the plane's position. Bouillard said that was an "important element" of the cause of the crash."
This comment still goes back to my posts above, how can any pilot determine what's the correct movement when your instruments are incorrect and it's dark and in a thunderstorm with no adaquate view of the horizon?
If you read enough Flying Mag articles of Aftermath, almost every crash has to do with loss of control in IMC conditions. Disorientation.
Air France just proved on a larger scale what happens around the globe all the time.
If your instruments are incorrect and your "seat of the pants" are unreliable, you're most likely going to crash.
Posts: 418 | From: Buffalo, NY
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bob Willcutts
Post Captain
Member # 434
|
posted
Dan,
I do not know about Airbuses aerodynamics but every airplane that I piloted was inherently stable when trimmed properly for the current profile, say "Cruise". Power set, airspeed stable, altitude stable,and any stick forces were trimmed out (neutral) for the situation. If one did nothing during an "upset" (such as turbulence, thunderstorm, etc) the aircraft would eventually return itself back to it pre upset position...or at least pretty close. It may take some time for the aircraft to "recover" but it would happen.
One "old adage" I was taught: If all hell breaks loose, let go of the controls! or in the case of the MD-80, put it back on autopilot! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Any other thoughts?
Bob
Posts: 80 | From: Cabot, VT, USA
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic