Air France crash black box data
30 May 2011, 06:12 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air France crash black box data
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...74Q16520110527
So sounds like the plane had stalled, but rather than dive to increase air-speed and then pull up, the pilot just pulled up the nose and contined like that, with the plane hitting the water nose-up..
So sounds like the plane had stalled, but rather than dive to increase air-speed and then pull up, the pilot just pulled up the nose and contined like that, with the plane hitting the water nose-up..
30 May 2011, 06:20 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like it stalled because they made it stall by having too much angle of attack after the auto-pilot shut off 'cos of bad air speed data.
What I can't understand is how they were dropping 10,000 ft per min and didn't realise they had stalled it.
Sounds like a nightmare though. Put's you off flying.
What I can't understand is how they were dropping 10,000 ft per min and didn't realise they had stalled it.
Sounds like a nightmare though. Put's you off flying.
30 May 2011, 08:32 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain went for a crew rest, as he is legally allowed to do, and left the two co-pilots in charge. As both of these were relatively inexperienced that decision is open to scrutiny. Capt returned to the cockpit during the incident, but was unable to recover the aircraft.
Trending Topics
30 May 2011, 09:05 PM
#12
Super Muppet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside out
Posts: 33,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 May 2011, 10:48 PM
#14
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30 May 2011, 10:49 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You started it.
30 May 2011, 10:54 PM
#16
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain went for a crew rest, as he is legally allowed to do, and left the two co-pilots in charge. As both of these were relatively inexperienced that decision is open to scrutiny. Capt returned to the cockpit during the incident, but was unable to recover the aircraft.
31 May 2011, 01:04 AM
#18
I shudder to think at how distorted your general view of the world must be, if you can get that many basic facts wrong from reading just one news article
31 May 2011, 08:14 AM
#19
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scoobynet
Posts: 5,387
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the voice recorder one of the co-pilots stated that the altitude was 10,000ft when they were at that height, so they must have been aware they were rapidly descending - seems very odd they didn't dive a little to pick-up some air-speed then pull up.
31 May 2011, 11:27 AM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the satellite charts for that day and it showed unusually intense storm activity along the combining zone. There always are towering cu nimbus clouds along there and I have had to take a 100 mile diversion to miss them in the past.
There is a standard procedure to maintain control of an aircraft with loss of airspeed information and it is surprising that none of the pilots seem to have carried it out. They would surely still have had attitude information from the ADI (Artificial horizon). All the pilots should have been capable of at least recovering the aircraft to straight and level flight. To lose total control from that sort of height is pretty unlikely.
I personally think that there is a strong possibility of airframe damage because the aircraft flew into a Cu Nimbus cloud. The sort of storm cloud in that area would be extremely strong with violent up and downdraft forces from the highly turbulent vertical winds in the storm. I always remember my initial flying instructor telling me that it is worse than a washing machine inside one of those! Any sensible pilot would avoid them like the plague.
I seem to remember that it was said that the cloud collision radar was seeing a smallish storm at the time which was ignored, but that it was hiding a very big one behind it.
I think that if they ever get a chance to inspect the wreckage it is certainly possible that there was some form of airframe damage because of the storm which made it impossible to retain control of the aircraft. Airspeed information failure alone should not have been such that they could not control the aircraft.
Les
31 May 2011, 01:11 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
These blocked Pitot tubes seem to be causing a lot of probs...
Its as if the pilots\computers RELY totally on these instruments, forgetting the basic rules of flight...
As Leslie said - they seem to forget that the attidute indicator - the most basic of instruments should be relied upon most in times of crisis....
Its as if the pilots\computers RELY totally on these instruments, forgetting the basic rules of flight...
As Leslie said - they seem to forget that the attidute indicator - the most basic of instruments should be relied upon most in times of crisis....
31 May 2011, 02:07 PM
#23
Super Muppet
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Inside out
Posts: 33,364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wherever it was you learned to read, I'd go back and ask for a refund. Your link doesn't even hint at anyone being away from the cabin other than the captain, so it can't possibly have been 'they' who couldn't get back in the cockpit. Also, despite being in the Mail, the link makes it perfectly clear the captain was in the cabin by the time of the actual crash (although not at the controls), and also that the autopilot had switched itself off.
I shudder to think at how distorted your general view of the world must be, if you can get that many basic facts wrong from reading just one news article
I shudder to think at how distorted your general view of the world must be, if you can get that many basic facts wrong from reading just one news article
It was just a link keep your knickers on
31 May 2011, 03:48 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of who was at fault I dread to think what was going through the minds of the passengers for the 3 minutes or so it took to hit the water.
What would you do in that 3 minutes?
What would you do in that 3 minutes?
31 May 2011, 04:07 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: High Wycombe
Posts: 3,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it feasible that it was a deliberate concious effort?
Even I know that with my limited knowledge that to recover from a stall you need to gain speed by diving.
Is the 15 degrees above horizontal they mention a big deal? I thought they take off at 40 odd?
Even I know that with my limited knowledge that to recover from a stall you need to gain speed by diving.
Is the 15 degrees above horizontal they mention a big deal? I thought they take off at 40 odd?
31 May 2011, 05:29 PM
#26
Once it stalled they were stuffed.
31 May 2011, 05:46 PM
#28
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,057
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very good point, the captain should not have left the flight deck under those flight conditions as you say.
I saw the satellite charts for that day and it showed unusually intense storm activity along the combining zone. There always are towering cu nimbus clouds along there and I have had to take a 100 mile diversion to miss them in the past.
There is a standard procedure to maintain control of an aircraft with loss of airspeed information and it is surprising that none of the pilots seem to have carried it out. They would surely still have had attitude information from the ADI (Artificial horizon). All the pilots should have been capable of at least recovering the aircraft to straight and level flight. To lose total control from that sort of height is pretty unlikely.
I personally think that there is a strong possibility of airframe damage because the aircraft flew into a Cu Nimbus cloud. The sort of storm cloud in that area would be extremely strong with violent up and downdraft forces from the highly turbulent vertical winds in the storm. I always remember my initial flying instructor telling me that it is worse than a washing machine inside one of those! Any sensible pilot would avoid them like the plague.
I seem to remember that it was said that the cloud collision radar was seeing a smallish storm at the time which was ignored, but that it was hiding a very big one behind it.
I think that if they ever get a chance to inspect the wreckage it is certainly possible that there was some form of airframe damage because of the storm which made it impossible to retain control of the aircraft. Airspeed information failure alone should not have been such that they could not control the aircraft.
Les
I saw the satellite charts for that day and it showed unusually intense storm activity along the combining zone. There always are towering cu nimbus clouds along there and I have had to take a 100 mile diversion to miss them in the past.
There is a standard procedure to maintain control of an aircraft with loss of airspeed information and it is surprising that none of the pilots seem to have carried it out. They would surely still have had attitude information from the ADI (Artificial horizon). All the pilots should have been capable of at least recovering the aircraft to straight and level flight. To lose total control from that sort of height is pretty unlikely.
I personally think that there is a strong possibility of airframe damage because the aircraft flew into a Cu Nimbus cloud. The sort of storm cloud in that area would be extremely strong with violent up and downdraft forces from the highly turbulent vertical winds in the storm. I always remember my initial flying instructor telling me that it is worse than a washing machine inside one of those! Any sensible pilot would avoid them like the plague.
I seem to remember that it was said that the cloud collision radar was seeing a smallish storm at the time which was ignored, but that it was hiding a very big one behind it.
I think that if they ever get a chance to inspect the wreckage it is certainly possible that there was some form of airframe damage because of the storm which made it impossible to retain control of the aircraft. Airspeed information failure alone should not have been such that they could not control the aircraft.
Les
What a tragedy! I feel a bit spooked as I have just travelled on Air France!
Asif
31 May 2011, 05:51 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Runway two seven right.
Posts: 6,652
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
31 May 2011, 06:43 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is a very good point, the captain should not have left the flight deck under those flight conditions as you say.
I saw the satellite charts for that day and it showed unusually intense storm activity along the combining zone. There always are towering cu nimbus clouds along there and I have had to take a 100 mile diversion to miss them in the past.
There is a standard procedure to maintain control of an aircraft with loss of airspeed information and it is surprising that none of the pilots seem to have carried it out. They would surely still have had attitude information from the ADI (Artificial horizon). All the pilots should have been capable of at least recovering the aircraft to straight and level flight. To lose total control from that sort of height is pretty unlikely.
I personally think that there is a strong possibility of airframe damage because the aircraft flew into a Cu Nimbus cloud. The sort of storm cloud in that area would be extremely strong with violent up and downdraft forces from the highly turbulent vertical winds in the storm. I always remember my initial flying instructor telling me that it is worse than a washing machine inside one of those! Any sensible pilot would avoid them like the plague.
I seem to remember that it was said that the cloud collision radar was seeing a smallish storm at the time which was ignored, but that it was hiding a very big one behind it.
I think that if they ever get a chance to inspect the wreckage it is certainly possible that there was some form of airframe damage because of the storm which made it impossible to retain control of the aircraft. Airspeed information failure alone should not have been such that they could not control the aircraft.
Les
I saw the satellite charts for that day and it showed unusually intense storm activity along the combining zone. There always are towering cu nimbus clouds along there and I have had to take a 100 mile diversion to miss them in the past.
There is a standard procedure to maintain control of an aircraft with loss of airspeed information and it is surprising that none of the pilots seem to have carried it out. They would surely still have had attitude information from the ADI (Artificial horizon). All the pilots should have been capable of at least recovering the aircraft to straight and level flight. To lose total control from that sort of height is pretty unlikely.
I personally think that there is a strong possibility of airframe damage because the aircraft flew into a Cu Nimbus cloud. The sort of storm cloud in that area would be extremely strong with violent up and downdraft forces from the highly turbulent vertical winds in the storm. I always remember my initial flying instructor telling me that it is worse than a washing machine inside one of those! Any sensible pilot would avoid them like the plague.
I seem to remember that it was said that the cloud collision radar was seeing a smallish storm at the time which was ignored, but that it was hiding a very big one behind it.
I think that if they ever get a chance to inspect the wreckage it is certainly possible that there was some form of airframe damage because of the storm which made it impossible to retain control of the aircraft. Airspeed information failure alone should not have been such that they could not control the aircraft.
Les