Air France Plane Drops Off Radar Over Atlantic

[verydumbubba]

June was a bit of a bummer!

BR>Jack

So if this is such a problem, why the superb safety record of these aircraft?

[cdnvic]

Other than vague innuendo, nobody has been able to come up with an answer.

There's been months with multiple Boeing, and Airbus (or McDonnell Douglas back in the day) crashes. It's all mostly luck of the draw.

As for Yemeni threatening to rescind it's tentative order, the complaint has to do with "moral & media support", nothing at all to do with the aircraft itself.

http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L740602.htm

[verydumbubba]

+400 corpses hardly qualifies as 'support' reasons, no matter how biased one's interpretation.

Everyone is posturing & jockeying for positions furthest away from das fan.

With all the Airbus delays, aircraft finance drought, lousy economy, political unrest, swine flu, etc, et al,

a couple wrecks with attendant blame-game & spin, it will take a couple smart ambulance-chasers a short courthouse trip to get any judge, except French, to side with any airline.

I doubt Airbus would ever get anywhere near the +200 A380 'orders' today, in 20:20 hindsight.

It would be interesting to see 'real time' operational costs - not the snakeoil salesmen pitch.

Bubba

[aka_jack]

What has this topic got in common with thailand?? I know its big news but its not thai related as per forum rules!

[cdnvic]

What has this topic got in common with thailand?? I know its big news but its not thai related as per forum rules!

As almost everyone here travels frequently, anything on international air travel and safety has always been allowed.

[halarpohala]

thai airways operates a number of a330-300 aircraft and i often find myself in one of these.

does anyone know if these airliners use the thales pitot tube (as did af447)?

and if so does thai intend to replace them with the recommended make and model?

i get a little nervous getting on them and the thai staff does not appear to be current on the subject matter.

[verydumbubba]

I believe we are all more than a little concerned right now.

I would email Airbus and everyone else in between - I really mean everyone - press, agents, airlines, media

Lets get some definitive answers already.

Bubba

BTW - there is another thread here somewhere.

[jackdanielsesq]

One has to wonder if these folks are in total denial, or they simply dont care.

With the Airbus replacement of their 'in-house' OEM derivative with that of a US replacement component, that has been around forever, the legal ramifications are huge, especially as it is nothing new, and critical-mass to its safe operation.

BR>Jack

PARIS — Airbus is advising all airlines to replace, as a precaution, the type of air speed sensor that malfunctioned on an Air France plane that crash last month, the company confirmed Friday.

Airbus said it had sent the recommendation late Thursday to all operators of Airbus A330 and A340 wide-body planes in anticipation of a European safety order. A spokesman for the European Air Safety Agency has said it would propose within the next two weeks a ban on an older model of the component, known as a Pitot tube, made by the French manufacturer Thales. Airlines using a more recent model of the Thales tube are also being urged to replace at least two of three probes on each plane with a model built by Goodrich, an American competitor, Airbus and the safety agency said.

But in November 2008, after Air France had reported to Airbus a series of incidents involving Pitot tube malfunctions because of high-altitude icing on its A340s between May and August of that year, Airbus amended its original recommendation of September 2007, saying that the newer Thales model had not been designed to resist icing and could therefore not provide a significant improvement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/world/eu...crash.html?_r=1

[animatic]

What has this topic got in common with thailand?? I know its big news but its not thai related as per forum rules!

As almost everyone here travels frequently, anything on international air travel and safety has always been allowed.

Well I have talked with french people who flew in here a dozen times in the last 2 weeks alone.

And a few brazillians too. Air travel and planes are rather intrinsic to most Thai tourism and farang visitors.

[animatic]

One has to wonder if these folks are in total denial, or they simply dont care.

With the Airbus replacement of their 'in-house' OEM derivative with that of a US replacement component, that has been around forever, the legal ramifications are huge, especially as it is nothing new, and critical-mass to its safe operation.

BR>Jack

PARIS — Airbus is advising all airlines to replace, as a precaution, the type of air speed sensor that malfunctioned on an Air France plane that crash last month, the company confirmed Friday.

Airbus said it had sent the recommendation late Thursday to all operators of Airbus A330 and A340 wide-body planes in anticipation of a European safety order. A spokesman for the European Air Safety Agency has said it would propose within the next two weeks a ban on an older model of the component, known as a Pitot tube, made by the French manufacturer Thales. Airlines using a more recent model of the Thales tube are also being urged to replace at least two of three probes on each plane with a model built by Goodrich, an American competitor, Airbus and the safety agency said.

But in November 2008, after Air France had reported to Airbus a series of incidents involving Pitot tube malfunctions because of high-altitude icing on its A340s between May and August of that year, Airbus amended its original recommendation of September 2007, saying that the newer Thales model had not been designed to resist icing and could therefore not provide a significant improvement.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/01/world/eu...crash.html?_r=1

Good proactive move.

[F4UCorsair]

3 minutes to lose 30,000 feet (if the report is correct) gives the crew a long time to react and correct. 10,000 fpm is (I think) too high a descent rate for a flat spin, and I don't think an airliner would be capable of a flat spin anyway, so I'd suggest it must have been a very high descent angle, probably 20+ degrees.

I can't speak for Airbus, but Boeing have a table for attitude versus speed if the airspeed is suspect; the pilot/s set up the correct attitude (body angle to horizon) with a nominated power setting, and the aircraft will fly at the speed indicated in the table.

I appreciate it's easy to sit in an armchair and form theories, but if the aircraft was flyable, i.e., it hadn't suffered structural failure, or total instrument failure, then what were the crew doing? Wind noise alone would have indicated that it was at high speed, and if the primary flight instruments were indicating an unusual attitude for high speed (nose up), then that should have been investigated.

Discussions with former colleagues who fly Airbus aircraft say they are beautiful aircraft to fly, but the pilot isn't as aware of what is happening as with a Boeing aircraft. I guess part of that is that the pilot flys a computer, not unlike a video game, and the computer flys the aircraft.

Edited July 31, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[verydumbubba]

That does appear to point towards a 'catastrophic sequence of events' - mostly computer related

malfunctions, vis-a-vis control of the craft. Contrary to popular perception, computers dont think, they react to input.

Flawed/skewed input, lack of tactile awareness, regression, eventual shutdown & reboot is simply one scenario.

Bubba

3 minutes to lose 30,000 feet (if the report is correct) gives the crew a long time to react and correct.

[F4UCorsair]

bubba, generally what you say about computers is correct, however the Airbus computers have the ability to overide/not react to pilot inputs if those inputs will put the aircraft in a dangerous situation, e.g., if the pilots input were such that the aircraft would stall, the computer that the pilots fly will pass on the command, but stop short of a stalled situation. So the onboard Airbus computers do have the ability to 'think' within narrow parameters, but they must be programmed to do so.

There is a recognized condition of 'detatchment' in modern jet transports, particularly at night. The pilots sit so far out front that they can see no part of the aircraft but their immediate environment which can lead to a situation of spatial disorientation. That's why instruments (all instruments, but in particular those showing aircraft attitude), in reference to which flight is conducted, are so important.

Incidentally, many non pilots belive that a stall in an aircraft is engine stall. It's not. It is the wing stalling, i.e., ceasing to lift because the airflow over the wing breaks down, and that's caused by increasing the 'angle of attack' (angle to the airflow) beyond a critical angle..

Edited August 1, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[animatic]

bubba, generally what you say about computers is correct, however the Airbus computers have the ability to overide/not react to pilot inputs if those inputs will put the aircraft in a dangerous situation, e.g., if the pilots input were such that the aircraft would stall, the computer that the pilots fly will pass on the command, but stop short of a stalled situation. So the onboard Airbus computers do have the ability to 'think' within narrow parameters, but they must be programmed to do so.

There is a recognized condition of 'detatchment' in modern jet transports, particularly at night. The pilots sit so far out front that they can see no part of the aircraft but their immediate environment which can lead to a situation of spatial disorientation. That's why instruments (all instruments, but in particular those showing aircraft attitude), in reference to which flight is conducted, are so important.

Incidentally, many non pilots belive that a stall in an aircraft is engine stall. It's not. It is the wing stalling, i.e., ceasing to lift because the airflow over the wing breaks down, and that's caused by increasing the 'angle of attack' (angle to the airflow) beyond a critical angle..

Which brings in the scenario of the computers getting VERY bad information,

beyond their envelope of programed parameters, and then refusing pilot commands,

THINKING that the pilot has screwed up, when actually the computers references

are screwed up BEYOND their programed worst case fail modes.

I am sure most programming supurvisors are pilots even if the programiners aren't,

but still who decides what is the radical outside limits of the POSSIBLE failing of a airframe?

Edited August 2, 2009 by animatic

[verydumbubba]

The above quickly develops into the blind leading the cripple, as one set of bad data corrects another - all predicated on faulty input - which exacerbates the status quo.

More so if the flight deck was not manned or incorrect data was being accessed. The AP goes nose down to contra the stall, pilot goes nose-up - by then it was too late - all the exit codes were transmitted.

Either Airbus go with the pitots or their (faulty) embedded, default flying-envelope - the pilot cannot override the system

to save the craft. Either way, they are culpable - its on record - now its only a matter of degree.

One of the A380 (wiring) delay factors was that the s/w was written in French, German & English.

Bubba

[F4UCorsair]

animatic, I'm not sure if you're looking too hard. I hate to say it, but most aircraft acidents are still caused by pilots, so I wouldn't take them out of the possible causes at this stage.

With modern aircraft, less importance is being placed on actual manipulative skills and more on the ability to manage the flight, not unlike a modern fighter aircraft; the computers fly the aircraft and the pilot flys the mission, and to that end, military aircraft can now be flown by voice commands. The only manouver that can't be performed automatically in the current generation of modern passenger jets is the take off, but the auto pilot may be engaged before the take off roll starts and it takes over the flying as the aircraft flys passes 100 feet. Most pilots prefer to hand fly until about 10,000 feet though.

After an automatic landing, in zero visibility and zero ceiling (cloud/fog right down to the deck), the aircraft can be steered automatically (pilots with hands off) until it comes to a stop. In flight, speed, altitude and heading changes, etc., aren't handled manually but by the twist of a dial or push of a button. That's how automated the modern jet has become.

As a consequence of less emphasis being placed on actual flying skills, some of those skills are lost over time, and I would wager that newer pilots of jet transports aren't even close to the skill levels of the previous generation (and in this context, a generation would be only 10 years or so), as an example.

I think we may be surprised at the cause, but I wouldn't put it down to failure of elecronics/automation just yet.

Edited August 3, 2009 by F4UCorsair

[verydumbubba]

The problem is manifold - the pilots have less flying skills - an Airbus mantra - the flight envelope disguises real conditions - their exit strategy is flawed - makes it impossible to recover. Catastrophic sequence of events.

Bubba

[cgjtt]

What, these guys get their licences from a bubble gum machine ?? When you get to the left seat of an A330, it means you have on average 8000 to 12000 hours flying time or about 10 to 15 years experience. On top of that they go up the chain, which means flying ( yes hands on ) turbo props for a few years then maybe a Boeing 737, Everyone in the the majors does it the same way. If some people are saying airbus guys have less experience flying hands on, just remember that airfrance operates a very large fleet of Boeing 737 777 and B747.

Quote,

"With the Airbus replacement of their 'in-house' OEM derivative with that of a US replacement component, that has been around forever, the legal ramifications are huge, especially as it is nothing new, and critical-mass to its safe operation"

That's a good one, OEM. Yeah, like they just ran to Carrefour to get an EEC computer.( the one on sale ) I think you need to read up on FAA aircraft certification requirements.

[verydumbubba]

Tis the rub, perhaps?!

Bubba

So the onboard Airbus computers do have the ability to 'think' within narrow parameters, but they must be programmed to do so.

[cdnvic]

The problem is manifold - the pilots have less flying skills - an Airbus mantra - the flight envelope disguises real conditions - their exit strategy is flawed - makes it impossible to recover. Catastrophic sequence of events.

Bubba

Zen and the art of rubbish.

[verydumbubba]

Until someone here loses a loved one

Bubba

[Hermano Lobo]

There is the possibility that the aircraft flew into a dangerous storm. Got hit by lightning, which caused major problems with the Kapton wiring, which is a problem in itself(ref: Swissair MD-11 fire and crash over Nova Scotia).

The Kapton wiring arced, shorted-out. With resultant computer and information problems.

As usual, a number of things, all at the same time.

The crew did not have a chance.

Freak weather, dodgy Kapton wiring.

[animatic]

animatic, I'm not sure if you're looking too hard. I hate to say it, but most aircraft acidents are still caused by pilots, so I wouldn't take them out of the possible causes at this stage.

With modern aircraft, less importance is being placed on actual manipulative skills and more on the ability to manage the flight, not unlike a modern fighter aircraft; the computers fly the aircraft and the pilot flys the mission, and to that end, military aircraft can now be flown by voice commands. The only manouver that can't be performed automatically in the current generation of modern passenger jets is the take off, but the auto pilot may be engaged before the take off roll starts and it takes over the flying as the aircraft flys passes 100 feet. Most pilots prefer to hand fly until about 10,000 feet though.

After an automatic landing, in zero visibility and zero ceiling (cloud/fog right down to the deck), the aircraft can be steered automatically (pilots with hands off) until it comes to a stop. In flight, speed, altitude and heading changes, etc., aren't handled manually but by the twist of a dial or push of a button. That's how automated the modern jet has become.

As a consequence of less emphasis being placed on actual flying skills, some of those skills are lost over time, and I would wager that newer pilots of jet transports aren't even close to the skill levels of the previous generation (and in this context, a generation would be only 10 years or so), as an example.

I think we may be surprised at the cause, but I wouldn't put it down to failure of elecronics/automation just yet.

While I agree that most all pilots have a serious amount of hours in large planes before taking one of these babies,

there maybe something to this lack of emergenciy skills issue you bring up.

While not a pilot per se I follow the issues, I have 'flown' from the 2nd chair,

and once was talked down and landed a Cessna when the pilot had a chocking fit and blacked out.

He barely lived, but I did NOT wreck the plane, to the utter shock of the guys on the ground.

I was a flight nut at the time and knew enough to NOT over compensate and just listen and give feedback.

Planes have amazing capabilities these days, and to some extent I think that simply '

managing the flight', vs 'flying the plane' has weakened the emergency skills a bit.

[cdnvic]

Lets not forget that you don't just show up at flying school and get thrown into an A330. Every pilot flying heavies has spent countless hours flying everything from commuter prop planes to regional jets and isn't ignorant of the subtleties of aircraft control.

Again, I ask those who keep throwing out innuendo and fear mongering to show me a single airline accident proven to have been caused by fly by wire. They can't. That's why all you see is fear mongering and silly little haikus.

[cdnvic]

Until someone here loses a loved one

Bubba

Thousands have died in crashes of Boeings, McDonnell Douglases, Lockheeds, and Tupolevs, why aren't you stirring up irrational fear about those?

Edited August 3, 2009 by cdnvic

[F4UCorsair]

cdnvic said, Again, I ask those who keep throwing out innuendo and fear mongering to show me a single airline accident proven to have been caused by fly by wire. They can't.

I believe you're right; I don't think a single accident has been proven to have been caused by 'fly by wire' technology, but Boeing still has the comfort of a mechanical connection between the control column and the control surfaces, and that provided pilots with a lot of comfort.

Sure, it's very dificult to fly a big jet without hydraulics, but at least there is a physical link and the control surfaces can still be moved (muscled) via cables. If a wiring loom burns out of an Airbus, then you're in diabolical trouble.

There are a number of documented cases of pilots causing accidents as a result of not fully understanding the early Airbus technology though, and it was difficult technology to adapt to and understand after the previous generation of aircraft.

I'd say just wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is. I recall a Lauda Air Boeing 767 going out of control on climb out of Bangkok, at night, about 15 years ago after one engine went into reverse. There was plenty of time and altitude to recover, and it was recoverable, but the aircraft crashed killing all on board, the first B767 fatal crash after many years service of the type.

This was a prime example of an experienced crew being caught even though they were half expecting such an incident after confirming a previous failure (a light that warned of a possiblity that the engine reverse thrust may deploy). The immediate effect would have been the aircraft rolling and that would have resulted in immediate disorientation, but it's something that is covered in simulator training and should have been recoverable.

It was interesting that the Australian Aviation writer and retired crash investigator Macarthur Job has noted that, "had that Boeing 767 been of an earlier version of the type, fitted with engines that were mechanicallyrather than electronically controlled, then that accident could not have happened."

I think that Boeing may have modified thrust reverses to ensure the same failure couldn't occur again.

I often wonder if, in the pursuit of lighter structures and more complex electronics, in the pursuit of higher

payloads (read 'improved bottom lines') hasn't led us up a path we're coming to realize isn't the best one.

There's an old saying, but true, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".

[bkkjames]

Good post corsair.

Don't disagree with alot you say there. However, I think you will agree that in general planes are much safer today than when the 767 was launched?

[cdnvic]

There are a number of documented cases of pilots causing accidents as a result of not fully understanding the early Airbus technology

Other than one test aircraft, there are none.

I'd say just wait and see what the outcome of the investigation is. I recall a Lauda Air Boeing 767 going out of control on climb out of Bangkok, at night, about 15 years ago after one engine went into reverse. There was plenty of time and altitude to recover, and it was recoverable, but the aircraft crashed killing all on board, the first B767 fatal crash after many years service of the type.

They had just 20 seconds between the thrust reverser deploying and the aircraft disintegrating. Had they taken the warning seriously nine minutes before (instead of trying to invent excuses to ignore it) and shut down the engine, 223 people, including the two stupid men in the cockpit would have lived.

Cockpit Voice Recorder transcript from Lauda Flight 004:

23.21:21 - [Warning light indicated]

23.21:21 FO: Shit.

23.21:24 CA: That keeps, that's come on.

23.22:28 FO: So we passed transition altitude one-zero-one-three

23.22:30 CA: OK.

23.23:57 CA: What's it say in there about that, just ah...

23.24:00 FO: (reading from quick reference handbook) Additional system failures may cause in-flight deployment. Expect normal reverse operation after landing.

23.24:11 CA: OK.

23.24:12 CA: Just, ah, let's see.

23.24:36 CA: OK.

23.25:19 FO:

23.25:26 CA: Ah, you can tell 'em it, just it's, it's, it's, just ah, no, ah, it's probably ah wa... ah moisture or something 'cause it's not just, oh, it's coming on and off.

23.25:39 FO: Yeah.

23.25:40 CA: But, ah, you know it's a ... it doesn't really, it's just an advisory thing, I don't ah ...

23.25:55 CA: Could be some moisture in there or somethin'.

23.26:03 FO: Think you need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.

23.26:06 CA: What's that?

23.26:08 FO: You need a little bit of rudder trim to the left.

23.26:10 CA: OK.

23.26:12 CA: OK.

23.26:50 FO: (starts adding up figures in German)

23.30:09 FO: (stops adding figures)

23.30:37 FO: Ah, reverser's deployed.

23.30:39 - [sound of snap]

23.30:41 CA: Jesus Christ!

23.30:44 - [sound of four caution tones]

23.30:47 - [sound of siren warning starts]

23.30:48 - [sound of siren warning stops]

< starts and continues until the recording ends]

23.30:53 CA: Here, wait a minute!

23.30:58 CA: dam_n it!

23.31:05 - [sound of bang]

Sample of airline accidents due to loss of mechanical and/or hydraulic controls:

United Airlines 232, July 1989 - 111 dead

Turkish Airlines 981, March 1974 - 346 Dead

US Air 427, Sept 1994 - 132 dead

Japan Airlines 123, August 1985 - 520 dead

American Airlines 191, May 1979 - 273 dead

Sample of airline accidents due to fly by wire failure:

None in 22 years of airline service and 5700+ aircraft built.

[bkkjames]

Interesting read about this topic ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/ar...Flight-447.html

[jackdanielsesq]

Wrong!

FBW is simply part of the process - if the pilot cannot correct/override the system, where would you apportion blame?!

The reality of the situation is the airline and/or craft manufacturer will always blame the dead pilot for the wreck.

That is reality - simulation is not realty. If the FBW does 90% of the flying, it deserves an equal proportion of the blame.

But, as there is only one PIC - he gets tagged.

It is folly to wrest control from the pilot, then hand it back after the situation has became untenable.

We already know that the pitots are faulty, and have been for a long while - which part is integral to the FBW input process - which part of that do you not understand. One small incorrect parameter can trash an entire system.

To wit, one can never solve logic with silly emotional outbursts, claims, innuendo & challenges.

There is a problem, and it must be solved, or rendered safer.

That is not to say that flying is not safer than walking to the store for cookies.

But when it goes down, it is big. Remember these guys are in it for the money.

Big Bucks is on the side of Big Business. Thats not rocket science.

Monday morning quarterbacking is not science - its a luxury the real world does not participate in.

Once you have lost a loved one, the whole scenario changes - the whinge & whine stops - its not about fear-mongering or innuendo - its about cause & effect - solving problems.

I am currently heavily involved in another new FBW system, and keep all my options open.

I dont even want anyone to get hurt, let alone kill a whole slew of folks.

We keep alluding the the catastrophic sequence of events - here it is - almost the perfect storm.

BR>Jack

BTW _ I wouldnt trust the BEA with anything.

cdnvic said, Again, I ask those who keep throwing out innuendo and fear mongering to show me a single airline accident proven to have been caused by fly by wire. They can't.