Air France? No thanks...
- Thread starter Da Peach
- Start date
Maybe that's why red-eye flights are cheaper?
gee better training? whoda thunk it?
sad so many people had to die because of inept pilots relying on computers to fly
sad so many people had to die because of inept pilots relying on computers to fly
Yikes. This will kill Air France in court.
They have had their share of woes lately...Not only this, the A340 in toronto.....but also the A380 clipping the RJ a few months ago. far less major but it was still a pilot not doing what he was supposed to.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame Air France, all airlines teach their pilots that in an emergency the first rule is "fly the plane". They're not the first pilots to fly a functioning aircraft into the ground (or sea in this case). Remember it's a cascading sequence of events as we countdown the seconds to disaster!
Prediction- MMike's favourite episode of Air Crash Investigation was AA 191 in 1979.
Prediction- MMike's favourite episode of Air Crash Investigation was AA 191 in 1979.
Actually, it is an unfortunate coincidence that "stall" is French for "mill about chaotically and argue amongst yourselves."
Its worth pointing out that the computer was right and the pilots ignored it. This is shockingly common.
There are several things that I don't understand about this crash.
1. The airspeed loss issue was well known. That the flight crew appears to have unprepared for this is......troubling.
2. They didn't have to "fly the plane". Remember, this happened in cruise. If they had just sat back and done nothing airspeed indications would have returned when the pitot tubes thawed and they would have continued on fat, dumb, and french. Instead, it appears they changed attitude and started to climb, induced mach stall because of the altitude, then argued the whole way into the ocean. This is pilot error of the most horrific kind.
3. I would love for someone to explain to me why the human mind refuses to accept guidance in these situations, especially when that mind is supposed to have been trained for such scenarios. As Valve Bouncer points out, this is hardly the first accident where crews have been presented with ample evidence that their actions are contrary to their long term survival.
Interestingly, I just pursued the QRH and on board flight manual for one of our aircraft, and neither contained sections regarding "loss of airspeed indication".
Ima hunt down the local chief pilot later today and ask him if they get trained for such a scenario.
Welcome to Costco. I love you.
i was referring to the pilots relying on autopilot and not knowing what to do when it came to a stall i.e. point the nose down
Last edited:
As a layman, I would argue that they did indeed have to do this, but it is precisely what they failed to do. Else they would have remained above the ocean, and not in it.
"Flying" implies keeping the plane in the air and not in the water.
Zut alors.
Well, in this case, the stall was induced by the pilots. I.E. when the auto pilot kicked off due to air speed indication loss the next move apparently was to point the nose up.
The crew should have at least had a reasonable hunch that they had not lost airspeed. 1. They should have know about the pitot issues, 2. Their engines were running fine and the attitude indicator was, I assume, probably still flat and level. 3. Based on some other things I've read, airspeed indication did return some time during the "descent", so there is still no reason not to have recovered the aircraft later, it did take them 3 1/2 minutes to hit the water.Mike, most aircraft have and inherent ability to "fly". I.E., they are built in such a way that baring out side influence and enough thrust (or even without thrust), they will pretty much point themselves forward and not fall out of the air. This is especially true of large passenger aircraft. This is known as aerodynamic stability. Other aircraft, such as fighters, tend to be aerodynamically unstable, while making them harder to fly it also gives the aircraft the ability to change course and heading VERY rapidly. Modern fighters are so unstable that they require millions of dollars worth of hardware and software just to keep them in the air, because a human quite frankly can't do it on his/her own. Hence my assertion that really the best thing this crew could have done, would have been to do nothing.
I know what you meant; I was just giving you ****.
Believe me, I used to own a copy of Flight Simulator II for the C64. And I even used to live with some pilots from Miramar. I know the need. The need for speed.
Believe me, I used to own a copy of Flight Simulator II for the C64. And I even used to live with some pilots from Miramar. I know the need. The need for speed.
You're dangerous.
Enough. We've all seen Iron Eagle a million times.
*Chest bump*
FAIL@!@@!!! FAIL OF THE MOST EGREGIOUS KIND!!!!!!
That was TOP GUN you boob!!!
What kind of Gen X'er are you????
It's easy to be a backseat, monday morning, armchair airline pilot, but I'm with Pesqueeb.
It PROBABLY would have sorted itself out.
The crew had lost ALL situational awareness. The whole trick with night IFR operation is relying 100% on what your instruments are telling you. Ignoring them entirely doesn't make sense to me.
I'd like to hear Andyman's opinion.
It PROBABLY would have sorted itself out.
The crew had lost ALL situational awareness. The whole trick with night IFR operation is relying 100% on what your instruments are telling you. Ignoring them entirely doesn't make sense to me.
I'd like to hear Andyman's opinion.
Interesting for sure.........
Iced up pitot tubes, which corrected 29 seconds later. I don't know why they didn't reference their attitude indicator and just fly based on engine settings. They should have some reference "healthy" engine setting they can go to at a particular altitude and know if we're straight and level this thing will fly until we're out of gas. Did the aircraft have GPS? If it did, did they not reference it? That would have at least been a "sanity check" that they were indeed somewhere in the neighborhood of a safe airspeed. Also, why on God's Green Earth did they pull up when they lost airspeed indication? Who the F does that? If I've lost airspeed indication I'm going to start a precautionary gentle decent. I've gone many a circuit around the pattern in a C172 with no airspeed indicator when I was getting my license. How these guys with hundreds more hours in much more complex machines botched this is beyond me. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback these kinds of things, we weren't there, but it sure seems like a massive breakdown of SA for sure.
Not many airline pilots have a whole lot or unusual attitude training, and I would venture to say that it's a perisable skill as well, something that would be worthwhile to do on a regular basis.
Iced up pitot tubes, which corrected 29 seconds later. I don't know why they didn't reference their attitude indicator and just fly based on engine settings. They should have some reference "healthy" engine setting they can go to at a particular altitude and know if we're straight and level this thing will fly until we're out of gas. Did the aircraft have GPS? If it did, did they not reference it? That would have at least been a "sanity check" that they were indeed somewhere in the neighborhood of a safe airspeed. Also, why on God's Green Earth did they pull up when they lost airspeed indication? Who the F does that? If I've lost airspeed indication I'm going to start a precautionary gentle decent. I've gone many a circuit around the pattern in a C172 with no airspeed indicator when I was getting my license. How these guys with hundreds more hours in much more complex machines botched this is beyond me. It's easy to Monday morning quarterback these kinds of things, we weren't there, but it sure seems like a massive breakdown of SA for sure.
Something I keep hearing that makes me scratch my head is how airline pilots have no experience with aero dynamic stalls. Sure any given airline isn't gonna send a bunch of bus drivers up in a $$$$$ plane just to try it out, but isn't this what simulators are for? As much time as our pilots spend in a sim before and after they are allowed to touch a 20 or 30 million dollar jet, they don't try it out once? You now, just in case.
That and what about a smaller plane to go get aquantied with unusual attitudes? Once you get a bit of that under your belt you know what to expect and how to react. When we do stalls on our jets it was a bit disconcerting at first, but once you knew what to expect no biggie.
With the exception of a mechanical failure like on the Alaska MD-80 or the 747 that had the tail explode out due to a faulty repair, isn't that usually the case in crashes?
Reminds me of the 747s on Tenerife. Just an amazing comedy of errors that ended in a horrific crash.
I'm to figure out if there is ANY way that they could have thought they were in a dive when in fact they were climbing?
Armchair piloting is fun!
For f:ck's sake Silver, it's a cascading series of events. CASCADING. Use the right terminology or exit the thread. Righto.
Teh trolling kind?
i have not witnessed either movie.
Exactly, if they lost airspeed indication, wouldn't that register as a failure (yellow/red light, and some sort of indication on their display) and not as say increasing airspeed (evidence of a dive)? But again, if your attidue indicator is saying "straight and level" why would you think you're in a dive? The two systems, the attitude gyro and pitot/static system, are not (or at least) should not be interconnected, so a failure with one wouldn't affect the other system. I really don't get it...........
(I'm trying to stay off my "seat of the pants" flying soapbox again)
From what I hear flying at such high altitudes leaves a very narrow window for errors. When something seems wrong wouldn't the first thing you would want to do is reduce altitude?
MikeD's knowledge of Top Gun (and the like) is not to be trifled with.
Go ahead, mother****er. Say "Airwolf." I dare you. Hell, I'm ****ing begging you.
They seem to have done that quite effectively.
Don't go all "Blue Thunder" now... I'm sure you're a regular Bubba Smith when provoked.